The Zeitgeist Movement

[Anonymous No.3826520]

What does /sci/ think of the Venus Project?

It does seem that Jacque's biggest downfall was his faith in mankind to see the wrongs and accept change so easily. Back in 1974 he envisioned a world today that would have already had most of this implemented. It is unfortunate to see that his society in Venus Florida still does not have any real financial backing or development. Like many visionaries I imagine it will be more than a generation past his life before his work is realized. Of course he underestimated the want and need of those in power to resist change in our system. No millionaire raised in this economy with Ferraris and Yachts will want to change the society they have wrapped around their finger. It seems change will have to start at the bottom. But enough about that, lets talk about the cool brain children this man has given to the world:

[Anonymous No.3826527]

A CIRCULAR CITY: At the center is a university, free to all, surrounded by research facilities, arts, theater, exhibitions, concerts, access centers, and various forms of entertainment

Water irrigates through the underbelly of the city, as does waste, much as our current system, but the waste is used in the outer lying agricultural as fertilizer while anything unwanted is irradiated.
Energy can be harnessed in many ways more efficient and safer than coal, or nuclear. Geothermal or underwater turbines. This method of energy consumer-ship we have now is only efficient as a way of making money, not providing energy. If we built just one of these volcano geothermal energy harnessing devices it would be able to power everything, there is no money in that.
Future transportation between cities on the same continent can easily be accomplished with magnetic based bullet trains that can move much faster than planes. Again the science is already there what lacks is financial resources. That train in todays economy would cost way too much to build and nobody would be able to afford it.
Housing could all be prefabricated and transported into place. Efficient fire-retardant and earthquake proof designs. Single dwellings, buildings. In the city our outside of it. Society is not so cookie cutter that they would enforce how to live, just how you can live.

[Anonymous No.3826532]

The venus project is an exploitative cult to make money off hopeful idealists. Avoid that shit. The leaders are fraudsters and have no intention of fulfilling their promises.

[Anonymous No.3826534]

When we have created a world where the day to day of society is no longer a struggle between rich and poor, business a and business b, business c and government regulatory body, government 1 and government 2, culture x and culture y, we can start to see harmony. Imagine the possibilities, you want to be lazy and sit on your bum for you life you can do that, its your right. Live on the beach an surf, go ahead. Want to travel, its encouraged and free, globally society is free. Most people will be driven to learn and create. Create art, or music there is no business, it is just shared instantly free to all that wish to experience it, he had this thought 25 years before the internet (amazing). Scientists are free to explore the problems of tomorrow, space travel, green economy. Architects and builders can create new ways of building things, larger buildings, larger ships, cities under water. You see when we put science and technology to work for us it frees human potential to do whatever we want and explore. The only thing holding us back of course is the entire structure of our society and everyone that has significant power wants nothing to do with these ideas...

There are obvious questions that need to be asked (and answered), and nobody is asking this...

"How do we make a society such as this seem attractive to those that have the power to make a change?"

Proponents of this system are adamant in its usefulness (which I will not deny), but it is an end point and does not suggest an interim.

"What is the path from now, to future?"

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3826538]

It seems like its not anything. Its not a project, or a plan, or any clearly devised idea at all.

"resource economy" doesnt mean anything.

I also think its funny that you are like

>Aw man the venus project doenst have any financial backing

Considering that one of the implications is that there will be no money in a resource economy.

[Anonymous No.3826564]

>>3826538
Yes, I can see how an economist would think like that. You failed to see my other point.

"It does seem that Jacque's biggest downfall was his faith in mankind to see the wrongs and accept change so easily."

His project needs financial backing because many builders are not idealists. They need the incentive of the current system. Once people see how the Venus project works, surely more will join the cause.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3826579]

>>3826564

Please, explain this to me.

How does the venus project work. Spare no details as I would love to hear about it.

I dont think idealism is the cause or fault here. It implies that anyone who has involvement in money is somehow cynical about human existence. That, I dont believe. I dont believe the venus project will bring people "beyond money" and that engineers/financers simply lack the faith in human spirit to see that.

[Anonymous No.3826614]

>>3826579
You need to watch the Zeitgeist movies.

[Anonymous No.3826639]

There are a few flaws but that would be ok if you listened to critics and made the changes needed to make your plan more feasible. You don't so my attentions turn towards more productive things, I guess there's not much more to it than that.

[Anonymous No.3826691]

Venus project - Great in an ideal hypothetical world. The truth - People are greedy, they always have been and will continue to be in the foreseeable future. This ruins the idealism that forms the very foundation of a money-less society.

Like communism - It is great in theory, much less so in practice.

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3826703]

>>3826579

I'm also curious.

More specifically, OP, how exactly is a resource economy different from Communism? If you want to implement Communism that's fine, you're not alone, but what the hell is a resource economy if not that?

[Anonymous No.3826706]

The command economy but it will work this time because computers.

By the time we have the technology to actually implement anything like it, it would be perverse to enforce those kinds of restrictions on anybody. And if we implement it prematurely, it will have the same result as any command economy we have seen in the past, ie, a slowly collapsing economy and a booming black market.

Don't listen to these people, I beg of you all. When automation, communications, robotics, and all these technologies reach maturity, do not place your means of support into the hands of a central authority.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3826713]

>>3826703

Yeah, also, I always felt the term "resource economy" was inappropriate, as it implies all the alternatives as in some way not related to resources.

If its not a resource economy, its not an economy.

[Anonymous No.3826733]

Jacque is a card carrying communist self proclaimed inventor who invented nothing, in his spare time he hob knobs at UN parties, the same people pushing a carbon (resource) based economy known as the global warming fraud. Actually, it is a grab to micro manage and control all of life on the planet at the expense of that life. It's obvious they can't be trusted.
It would be nice if he was another da Vinci but get real, this is the 21st century and nothing is for free with 6 billion monkeys roaming the planet

[Anonymous No.3826744]

>>3826538
>"resource economy" doesnt mean anything.

Would mean an economy of resources... which I would assume different from an economy of speculation.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3826754]

>>3826744

How are these mutually exclusive?

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3826755]

>>3826744

There's plenty of resources in our economy. We mine ore, smelt it into steel, use the steel to build steamers.

[Anonymous No.3826774]

>>3826754
>>3826755

I think that the Venus Project has a better idea of how to transmit information about supply and demand than money.

Their super-powerful computer which they have not presented, running super-efficient algorithms which they have not presented, will make sure everyone gets exactly what they deserve based on an as yet undefined set of parameters. What could go wrong?

[H+ No.3826786]

>>3826733

7 billion, actually.

As to the rest of your post, well...

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3826793]

>>3826774

>I think that the Venus Project has a better idea of how to transmit information about supply and demand than money.
>venus project has a better idea
>venus project has an idea
>idea

What is that idea?

`

[Anonymous No.3826795]

>>3826755
The financial sector so dwarfs that economy so much it can completely collapse the world in a day.

[Anonymous No.3826798]

>>3826703
>More specifically, OP, how exactly is a resource economy different from Communism?

As it is advocated the approach to distribution of materials is completely upside down from communism. Communism is a top down approach where the state gives out an equal share what it deems as a share.

RBE would be a bottom up approach where you go get what you need out of the 'central warehouse'.

The similarities of RBE and Communism stop at the ideas that everyone should evenly benefit from improvements in a society. Everything after that point is just people knee jerking.

[Anonymous No.3826799]

>>3826793

I'm glad you asked.

>Their super-powerful computer which they have not presented, running super-efficient algorithms which they have not presented, will make sure everyone gets exactly what they deserve based on an as yet undefined set of parameters.

Simple.

[Anonymous No.3826807]

>>3826798

So what happens when I have a different opinion on what a product or service is worth? What happens when I think I deserve more than the system gives me? How does it account for things like this?

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3826814]

>>3826798

So in other words its precisely Communism in the sense of Marx-Engels? Or am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.3826819]

>>3826706
>do not place your means of support into the hands of a central authority.

Stop fear mongering.

The central AI advocated in RBE is a DATABASE with an intuitive user interface. It's no more authoritarian than the DATABASES used by Wall Street to track stocks.

[Anonymous No.3826820]

>Like many visionaries I imagine it will be more than a generation past his life before his work is realized.
The project will never be realized because he thinks he is a super genius who got everything right the first time and the only reason he has failed is because of some huge elaborate conspiracy against him. Until he stops being arrogant he will make no progress beyond selling books to other narcissists.

[Anonymous No.3826822]

>>3826814
You're missing everything. You need to watch the Zeitgeist documentaries.

[Anonymous No.3826823]

>>3826807
The response from VP proponents will be something along the lines of "stop wanting things you shouldn't have, you dirty capitalist".

[Anonymous No.3826831]

>>3826814
That anon is clearly confusing communism with socialism. Yes, it is basically "anarchist-cyber-communism".

[Anonymous No.3826840]

>>3826822
HA HA HA

[Anonymous No.3826850]

>>3826754
I sometimes wonder if the world you see is the same one I see, if my red is your red. Hold that thought a sec...

>>3826755
When the global economy had it's hiccup a ways back (actually ANY of it's hiccups) which resource was it lacking? Ore? Steel? Workers? Equipment?

[Anonymous No.3826851]

>>3826823
Actually, participation would be entirely voluntary. You could go off and live in the woods and try to build everything you want yourself out of rocks and twigs.

[Anonymous No.3826863]

>>3826840
Right, very mature response.

[Anonymous No.3826865]

>>3826851

Yeah that sounds perfectly reasonable...

[Anonymous No.3826875]

>>3826851

And my point would be; if we had the tech to implement RBE without it being a standard command economy like any other; anybody COULD just spin themselves off and live a perfectly modern life without central computer running things for them.

[Anonymous No.3826876]

>>3826865
In capitalism if I want something I can't afford people just say "Well boo-hoo, life isn't fair. Work for it or don't complain." It's not much different really.

[Anonymous No.3826884]

>>3826876

So it doesn't have a system that takes into account different people wanting different things to different degrees?

This is not good.

[Anonymous No.3826888]

>>3826876
You can get a loan or go into debt, though.

[Anonymous No.3826893]

>>3826884
Most people are deluded into believing they want crap as a result of the capitalist system. Under Zeitgeist people will learn to appreciate the Arts and Science more

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3826898]

>>3826822

I watched the first one, and decided to add all further Zeitgeist films to the list of retarded shit I'd only see to understand popular culture. So perhaps after I read Atlas Shrugged, Twilight and watch the entire Jersey Shore series I'll watch the other films.

But if your response to queries regarding your worldview is "watch our film!", you shouldn't be surprised it's not taking off. Imagine Dark Age Britain.
>Missionary: So why are you worship trees? Wouldn't you rather worship the one God?
>Celt: Oh? What exactly is this one God like?
>Missionary: Just read our book. All 1200 pages of it.

[Anonymous No.3826900]

>>3826876

Um yes...except wanting a new Ferrari that you cannot afford is quite different from being forced to live alone in the woods without external contact.

[Anonymous No.3826901]

>>3826807
>I think I deserve more than the system gives me?

Depends on the laws determined by the people to handle that. I assume that there would be some hard limit set in place to keep people from riding around in jumbo-jets just for the sake of it. However it's not like you'll be food rationed to a cup of rice a day or something.

>>3826814
>So in other words its precisely Communism in the sense of Marx-Engels? Or am I missing something?

Dunno, don't read Marx, don't care. I suppose ultimately you can call it what you want so long as you have a firm grasp of what it is you're talking about and not just running around with your head up your ass.

Not OP by the way.

>>3826822
He's not missing anything, he's choosing to ignore it.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3826914]

>>3826703

>>More specifically, OP, how exactly is a resource economy different from Communism?

I will never understand why people confuse the two, or confuse any system where labor is optional and most don't work with a system where everybody is forced to work jobs chosen for them and must meet state imposed quotas.

It is not a worker's paradise if there are no workers. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" doesn't apply if your workers are no longer human. They will keep producing if told to whether we need it or not, and the provisions no longer need to come from someone elses pocket.

The paranoia that every proposed alternative to capitalism is communism in disguise is understandable as many were. This one is not. It is a legitimately different method of creating and allocating resources that cannot accurately be compared to any prior model because all prior models were predicated on the necessity of human labor, and this is the first model built from the ground up around widespread automation. Where other systems fall apart and can no longer meet peoples' needs when automation becomes widespread, this system actually requires it.

[Anonymous No.3826917]

>>3826893

I don't even.

They would limit free speech as well? Free enterprise?

I don't disagree that technology will liberate us, not enslave us. I am an optimist, and I can't imagine the current system remaining in place in the face of improved automation, robotics, prototyping, and so on. But the idea of putting control over my means of production, my rights of association, to another system? to a computer? Not appealing to me. I don't begrudge people who would want to live in these communes, so long as they aren't coercive.

[Anonymous No.3826921]

>zeigeist 1, full of inaccurate shit. EVERYWHERE
why watch past the first?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3826943]

Also, Fresco is charming and likeable but a terrible figurehead for post scarcity economics. He is a delightful childlike santa claus who wants to magically provide for everyone and knows exactly what the system should look like but nothing about how it should work.

Marshall Brain has written a great deal about how such a system could work and pointed out quite correctly that regardless of how difficult it is to realize such a system we must make the attempt, as the most plausible alternatives are all fairly grim.

[Anonymous No.3826944]

>>3826901

>Depends on the laws determined by the people to handle that. I assume that there would be some hard limit set in place to keep people from riding around in jumbo-jets just for the sake of it. However it's not like you'll be food rationed to a cup of rice a day or something.

And these people are going to be more just, make more just rules regarding this, than any such command economy in the past?

You must see why this is difficult to swallow.

If you had the computer up and running, if you could present the algorithms that are more effective than the market, we could talk for seriously. But right now, what is being suggested genuinely is just 'command economy, but it will work this time because computers'.

[Anonymous No.3826946]

>>3826520

The venus project is primitive, it really isn't progressive thinking at all. It collects most of the flaws of communism, as it is forced mediocrity.

Capitalism today is flawed heavily, but only because economically wise decisions often differ from moral decisions.
Capitalism is a simple and elegant idea, in theory if you work hard, if you are clever and innovative you are rewarded.
I think the only way forward is to develop a system like capitalism, just where you are rewarded for beneficial or moral work, not where you can be rewarded for manipulation.

[\ No.3826954]

>>3826520
I don't keep tabs on cult activity.

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3826958]

>>3826914

It doesn't matter if production is performed by man, beast or machine. Resources still need to be allocated and distributed, and there's only so many ways this can be achieved. If it's done by a central computer as some in this thread are suggesting, then it's central planning. If it's done in a decentralised, voluntary way with no currency as others are claiming, then it's communism.

[Anonymous No.3826990]

I watched Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.

It was an insult to rational thought. It was full of misinformation, appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and "My highly utopian ideals mean that my vaguely defined system will deliver!", AKA, "I care about people, therefore my idea is a good one".

Tell me how the VP system would resolve disputes in value judgements. Of ANY kind. Even "How much of the milk should go to make yogurt vs. cheese?"

[Anonymous No.3826996]

>>3826917
>But the idea of putting control over my means of production, my rights of association, to another system? to a computer?

You don't seem to be a Luddite, how do you continue to misinterpret technologies? If you don't like machines to make decisions for you do you not own any clocks?

[Anonymous No.3827018]

>>3826996
Not even that guy. Stop being retarded. The VP system seems to turn over all resource allocation and value judgments (!!!) to a central computer.

Clocks provide information. They do not make resource allocation decisions or value judgements.

[Anonymous No.3827037]

>>3826944
>And these people are going to be more just, make more just rules regarding this, than any such command economy in the past?

The people referred to all the people, depending on how they divide up that could be comparable to nations or states or local communities. I don't like the idea of having to have laws either, but it's people like you who will try to mess up a good thing just for the sake of messing it up that make laws neccessary.

>that are more effective than the market,

Define effective.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/29/tiger-woods-billion-business-sports-tiger.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eNPAH46oI8

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827041]

>>3826958

>It doesn't matter if production is performed by man, beast or machine.

Yes it does; Men need to be compensated for their work. If it really made zero economic difference who performed the labor and whether or not they were compensated there would have been vastly less opposition to the abolition of slavery.

>If it's done by a central computer as some in this thread are suggesting, then it's central planning. If it's done in a decentralised, voluntary way with no currency as others are claiming, then it's communism.

It isn't Communism if people aren't required to work. You seem to be comparing a system in which labor is compulsory and the fruits of that labor are redistributed equally with a system where machines perform the labor and nobody has to work unless they want to. The only point of commonality is that people benefit equally from machine labor, except that even with such a system in place nothing would prevent people from offering custom goods and personal services that cannot be had via mass production, thereby earning additional 'money' each month and enjoying a higher standard of living than their neighbors.

In that sense it is not a replacement for capitalism but a system which operates underneath it and insulates us from the consequences of capitalism gone wrong; Even if there is something like a recession, nobody will be homeless or go hungry. It's a safety net, or a platform upon which we can operate any other economic system we like without fear that its failure would result in mass suffering.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827042]

>this thread
Y'all capitalists getting buttmad.

[Anonymous No.3827045]

>>3826996

The clock is a tool. I may also base my own economic decisions on information given to me by a trusted source, be it the Financial Times, or friend computer. The central computer is also a tool. Programmed by someone else to run some other peoples lives.

Given the track record of centralising power in this way, it should be understandable to be skeptical.

In so far as it is non-coercive, I will gladly live alongside it, or maybe even dabble around the edges of it, why not? The more coercive it is, the more I would oppose it. As should we all.

[Anonymous No.3827058]

>>3827042
Inurdaes, I'm disappointed. I didn't have you pegged as the kind of tripfriend to make inane trollish non-arguments.

[Anonymous No.3827059]

>>3826946
>I think the only way forward is to develop a system like capitalism, just where you are rewarded for beneficial or moral work, not where you can be rewarded for manipulation.

Will fall apart with the increases of automation over the next century. Forcing people to labor when a robot can do their job is immoral. Your idea already contradicts itself.

[Anonymous No.3827064]

>>3826520

because the means of freedom are more important then the end of inequality. the end of inequality would require mass enslavement.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QxO49Ycx0

[Anonymous No.3827067]

>>3827059
>Forcing people to labor when a robot can do their job is immoral.
And any job that can be done by a machine more cheaply than it can by a person is being replaced. But instead of working less, we have chosen to achieve greater luxury.

Where have you been for the last century?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827078]

>>3827058
I've been in too many Venus Project threads to give a damn. The Venus Project will sort of happen simply from progression of technology. As more things get automated to do it better, faster, cheaper and more efficiently, we will go through a period of suck where capitalism restructures itself into an automated leisure abundance economy.

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3827080]

>>3827041

>Yes it does; Men need to be compensated for their work.

Machines need electricity, maintenance. If you want to split straws it's different from an employee, but no different from a beast of burden or a slave, just more efficient.

>It isn't Communism if people aren't required to work. You seem to be comparing a system in which labor is compulsory and the fruits of that labor are redistributed equally with a system where machines perform the labor and nobody has to work unless they want to.

All that's saying is that it's just Communism at a higher level of economic development. Instead of requiring 8 hours, or 6 hours from every worker, they require 0. An economic system is just a means of allocating resources. The method of production really doesn't matter. After all the basic General Equilibrium model has no production at all, goods appear magically. Even then one must ask how to distribute them.

If you let people come and take what they please, that's communism. If you create some sort of currency and have them exchange goods, that's a market system. If you allocate by fiat, that's allocation by fiat.

[Anonymous No.3827085]

>>3827078
I actually have a view that's similar.

But defending VP and Zeitgeist is irrelevant to that. Their bullshit is offensive to reason.

[Anonymous No.3827088]

>>3827018
>The VP system seems to turn over all resource allocation
Only in so far that you don't end up with a billion unused TVs sitting on store shelves growing outdated when their materials could have been used for other purposes.

>value judgments (!!!)
Outright false.

>Clocks provide information. They do not make resource allocation decisions or value judgements.

Depends on the clock.

Still a better question would be if you'd prefer to manually allocate your computer's system resources.

[Anonymous No.3827090]

>>3827037

You don't need to tell me we have a fucked up system in place right now.

My point from the start is that if we have the technology to implement RBE, we will be past the point of needing it. If we don't have the technology, it will be just another command economy. That's it.

My problem with the current, capitalist, system stems from, first, the concentration of power in those with enough capital to own and operate the means (of whatever), second, the concentration of power in those who make legislation that governs all economic activity, and third, the unhealthy interaction between the two.

RBE wants to concentrate both means and legislation in exactly the same place, and yet it will somehow work out better?

No, what I want is to own or part own a powerful and versatile 3D printer. Make my own stuff from open-source plans online. Go in on a mining interest to provide material, on an energy concern to provide power, maybe with tens of thousands of others, maybe from all over the world. Make more printers and send them to the developing world, for free.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827094]

>>3827085
Venus Project set me originally on my thirst to end scarcity as much as possible, but as time has worn on I disagree more and more with the suggestions of how to run society which they provide. The very core of what they propose is good though; technology should be used to create as much abundance as possible to support all people and to create a sustainable environment for millenia.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827096]

>>3827064

I fixed your picture.

>>3827058

Rely on me for that. If you really consider post scarcity economics to be fundamentally unworkable then argue the matter with me. I will make a better case for it than Fresco, but then so would a cinderblock with googly eye stickers on it.

[Anonymous No.3827102]

>>3827045
>to run some other peoples lives.

Nope.
Try again.
>2011
>He trusts automated e-mail and doesn't manually retrieve his e-mails from the server

[Anonymous No.3827121]

>>3827088
>Only in so far that you don't end up with a billion unused TVs sitting on store shelves growing outdated when their materials could have been used for other purposes.
This is the same bullshit that the Zeitgeist movies pull. "Look at this problem! That means that my idea is better."

No.

>>value judgments (!!!)
>Outright false
That's not good enough. It's not even an argument. Try answering the challenge in
>>3826990
>Tell me how the VP system would resolve disputes in value judgements. Of ANY kind. Even "How much of the milk should go to make yogurt vs. cheese?"

[Anonymous No.3827122]

>>3827102

So again, what happens when I have a different idea of what my work is worth, or what that product or service is worth, to the computer? Can I shop around for a better deal?

No. Someone else, by programming a computer, has determined this for me. This is a bad situation, incredibly vulnerable to abuse.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827136]

>>3827080

>Machines need electricity, maintenance. If you want to split straws it's different from an employee, but no different from a beast of burden or a slave, just more efficient.

However, nothing prevents power plants from being built by machines. Nothing prevents robots from servicing other robots. You have some throwaway maintinence model that is recycled at the bottom of the food chain, and use as many of the same parts in different models as possible so you don't need as diverse a manufacturing base to build them all. Those two methods alone eliminate most of the otherwise nightmarish complications that trying to automate society invite.

>All that's saying is that it's just Communism at a higher level of economic development.

It isn't. It's fundamentally different in concept.

>Instead of requiring 8 hours, or 6 hours from every worker, they require 0.

At which point it is no longer Communism. Workers of the world unite? What workers? What work? Communism was never about taking everything from a subclass of people condemned to endless unpaid labor and then giving it to a larger class of people who don't have to work, it was about everyone working and the fruits of their labor being dsitributed evenly.

>An economic system is just a means of allocating resources. The method of production really doesn't matter.

It does, because it can dramatically alter what the best method of resource allocation is.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827138]

>After all the basic General Equilibrium model has no production at all, goods appear magically. Even then one must ask how to distribute them.

And questions like that (who gets how much, and why) depend largely on who produces the goods and how (or if) they are compensated for it.

>If you let people come and take what they please, that's communism.

Only if everyone involved was in part responsible for the production of the goods being taken. Otherwise it's something different.

>If you create some sort of currency and have them exchange goods, that's a market system. If you allocate by fiat, that's allocation by fiat.

And yet the system I describe incorporates both. There is an abundance of mass produced goods for whoever wants them, but people are free to offer goods and services that cannot be mass produced in exchange for whatever currency is used to regulate consumption so that greedy people don't overwhelm production capacity. Now you have a market and a mild degree of inequality, but inequality that cannot grow out of control and which is inarguably justifiable as it can only result from peoples' hard work.

[Anonymous No.3827150]

>>3827067
This assumes that the rate of automation is not capable of putting people out of work at an ever greater pace.
This also proposes that there is some paradigm beyond the already insanely broad 'service sector' but does not even attempt to suggest what that might be.

Creative pursuits (sciences and arts) are all that will be left after the service sector and creativity simply can't be forced.

[Anonymous No.3827168]

>>3827096

[spoiler]motivation[spoiler]

nice pipe dream buddy, but forced coercive centralization; the redistribution of wealth and social engineering, none of it will last for very long, and it certainly will never provide the ideal society we each long for. I believe people have the right to associate freely and if people voluntarily choose to live in communes then that is fine by me but all attempts of centralization have always ended in massive blood shed. keep telling yourself that real socialism would never result in USSR, but you and I both know the truth and that is the forceful and coercive acquisition of peoples and properties for the sake of "the greater good" will always result in a mass deprecation of the human race, where everyone is plundering everyone.

people need to provide charity and help each other, but that charity must necessarily consist voluntarily and purposefully. otherwise all you have is the primitivism that you have desperately ascribed to the productive.

[Anonymous No.3827177]

>>3827150

Creativity can be encouraged, though.

If we had most people working on a hobby level, and a fraction working seriously at philosophy, science and art, we'd still be ahead of today. And there would certainly be a lot of blurring and movement between these two sectors.

[Anonymous No.3827184]

What Jacque Fresco is describing is essentially the goal of economics. It's not a thing you can just decide to do right now, it's something we are all working towards whether you are aware of it or not. The economic problem is the problem of deciding how to produce and equitably distribute as much wealth as possible while minimizing the amount of labor to produce it.

Saying you want the world described in the Venus Project is essentially saying you want the economic problem solved early. When the economic problem is solved there probably would be no need for money.

The problem is that the economic problem will never be solved. Because, humans have this tendency to expand their demands to fit with the available supply of a resource. Produce more food? We just eat more and get fat. Digital cameras are cheap? Well I want several different colors.

[Anonymous No.3827206]

>>3827090
>You don't need to tell me we have a fucked up system in place right now.
You implied that the market was effective so clearly I need to find out what your idea of effective is.

>we will be past the point of needing it.

You mean that every individual will have their own personal means of production which far surpasses anything they could need? (IE: Molecular Assemblers)

Why should I have to lug such a thing around on my person just because you say that makes me more 'free'? What happens if it is damaged or broken? Do I have to get on my knees and hope someone else will show me kindness by making a replacement?

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3827231]

>>3827136

>However, nothing prevents power plants from being built by machines
How many power plants? What type? Where? How are these questions resolved?

>It isn't. It's fundamentally different in concept.
How? You have a finite amount of resources you can use to produce a finite number of goods to distribute between a finite number of agents. First, how do you decide how many goods, and of what kind, to produce. Second, having produced the desired set of goods, how do you distribute them? If you let everyone come into a warehouse and take what they please, that's communism.

How is your system different from any other system? How would resource allocation in a VP society differ from resource allocation in a capitalist society at the same level of economic development?

>And yet the system I describe incorporates both. There is an abundance of mass produced goods for whoever wants them, but people are free to offer goods and services that cannot be mass produced in exchange for whatever currency is used to regulate consumption so that greedy people don't overwhelm production capacity.
Who decides how many, and what kind, of goods to mass produce? How do people obtain production inputs to whatever they want to produce? How is this currency regulated, and what can it be used for?

[Anonymous No.3827242]

>>3827206

The market IS effective. That is one component of the system. The concentration of power is encouraged by people who already have it, and enabled by our current level of technology. This is an exploit of our current system.

You would not need to lug any molecular assembler (or home prototyper) around. You'd have one at home, or you'd own one in a cooperative, or you'd go to some company that has one. If you wanted one, you'd get a friend to print one up, or you'd join a cooperative. I don't find it hard to believe that someone would give you a replacement. That is, unless control over these machines was centralised, and the central authority did not deem you worthy of having one, as could occur in RBE.

[Unnoteworthy !!Mh9dXblOzzt No.3827245]

>>3827094
What a coincidence, I feel roughly the same as you do. Though I had ideas about an abundant society before I encountered VP.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827261]

>>3827245
I was first introduced and hooked at the age of 10 on the idea of a society where money doesn't have to be used and technology can provide abundance in a book called Ninety East Ridge by Stephen Reilly, so VP isn't exactly the start of it, it just rekindled that interest.

[Anonymous No.3827274]

>>3827121
>>3826990
Looks like no one is taking up the challenge.

If VP proponents can't even describe how they would decide how much milk to use to produce cheese vs. yogurt, let's just say I'm not encouraged.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827280]

>>3827274
>Sector B is experiencing deficiencies in milk production for dairy products
>Allocate 0.9% more grain production for a 5% increase in cattle for the forecasted dairy demand

[Anonymous No.3827285]

>>3827121
>This is the same bullshit that the Zeitgeist ...

Better than ignoring the problem. However it says much about the wasteful allocation of goods we're seeing with markets which, according to popular belief is supposed to be an area they excel at. The kind of resource allocation you're pitching a bitch about is specifically intended to minimize wasted materials and production, not decide who does and does not get a ferrari.

>That's not good enough

I'd hate to be your professor, I can just imagine the fight you given him every time he asks a true/false question.

It's false because that's not what is being advocated, if you'd like to insist that it is provide me an example from their literature.

>Tell me how the VP system would resolve disputes in value...

Depends on how much yogurt and cheese is needed. There is no value judgment to be made here.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827289]

>>3827231

>How many power plants? What type? Where? How are these questions resolved?

Well, I don't think it's a baseless value judgement to say that solar power plants work best in perpetually sunny regions or that hydroelectric dams belong in locations with falling water. Somehow I think we will be able to make determinations like this without the present economic system.

>How?

In one system labor is compulsory, performed by humans, and redistributed to those same humans. In the other it is performed by nonhuman machinery and distributed to a human population that does not perform labor, or at least does not have to.

>You have a finite amount of resources you can use to produce a finite number of goods to distribute between a finite number of agents.

This is true of any system. Surely you don't feel that all economic systems are therefore identical?

>First, how do you decide how many goods, and of what kind, to produce.

People order them.

>Second, having produced the desired set of goods, how do you distribute them?

Something closely resembling a network of highspeed rail to the general vicinity, with something similar to a PRT network but adapted for cargo to get the goods into your neighborhood, then a smaller autonomous road vehicle to get them to your front door.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827296]

>If you let everyone come into a warehouse and take what they please, that's communism.

Only if they were responsible for the production of those goods. In the system I propose, people cannot take as much as they please; Credits are allotted monthly to limit the rate of consumption so that greed does not overwhelm the production capacity of the machines. It is more analogous to a student meal plan.

>How is your system different from any other system?

It is not based around the assumption that humans will always perform the labor.

>How would resource allocation in a VP society differ from resource allocation in a capitalist society at the same level of economic development?

Everyone is able to afford the necessities whether or not they work, those necessities aren't supplied by taxpayers, and the buying power of individuals is flexible but not so much so that there could be a permanently ultra wealthy class and a majority living in poverty.

>Who decides how many, and what kind, of goods to mass produce?

The people ordering the goods. They are fabricated on demand.

>How do people obtain production inputs to whatever they want to produce?

They design them.

>How is this currency regulated, and what can it be used for?

The amount allotted per month is directly related to total production capacity. The more robots there are per person, the more each individual can consume without overwhelming production capacity.

[Anonymous No.3827303]

>>3827280
If you think that's an answer, my estimation of you has dropped even further. That's a description of a decision being announced, not a description of HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827305]

Hey Guis, I am back. I had to do some homework but I am back.

>>3827136

>However, nothing prevents power plants from being built by machines.

I think the difficulty associated with designing robots that can build other robots would be immense. So immense, that it would be more worthwhile to build them yourself.

You talk about robots servicing other robots. I think robots lack the intelligence to do this. Robots would be very good at tightening a nut, if said nut was loose. But identifying whether the problem is a loose nut, versus an infinite number of unpredictable problems? I think that takes a mind. You cant simply program it to handle every single possible problem that would arise.

I think ultimately my disagreement when arguing with friends like Inurdaes, is about cost efficiency. You cant simply say "automation is good, because it doesnt have a wage." Wage is just one of many types of costs, and simply because automation is without the cost of wage doesnt mean it is without costs all together.

When, Its not to say we should not do this, I am more arguing that we should behave in a cost efficient way. And I think some of you folks are thinking with your love for robots and science, and not thinking with science or rationality itself.

Which... is a very respectable and cute mistake.

[Anonymous No.3827310]

>>3827122
>So again, what happens when I have a different idea of what my work is worth, or what that product or service is worth, to the computer?

If you're asking how much you'll be compensated for your work why do feel entitled to compensation for work you willingly chose to do?

[Anonymous No.3827320]

>>3827285
>Depends on how much yogurt and cheese is needed. There is no value judgment to be made here.
Bullshit. The value judgment is "What is the marginal value of one more unit of yogurt, compared to the marginal value of one more unit of cheese, as a function of the current production levels of yogurt, cheese, and milk?"

This IS a value judgment. There's no stone tablet somewhere that tells you how valuable yogurt is compared to cheese at a given level of production.

How do you know where to send the milk, and how much? If making more yogurt means making less cheese, should we do it?

[Anonymous No.3827323]

>>3827285
>Depends on how much yogurt and cheese is needed. There is no value judgment to be made here.
>how much is needed
>no value judgment

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827347]

>>3827305

>I think the difficulty associated with designing robots that can build other robots would be immense. So immense, that it would be more worthwhile to build them yourself.

Except it already happens. Go tour the factory where your roomba is made. It is constructed by other robots. All mass produced robots are built by robots.

>You talk about robots servicing other robots. I think robots lack the intelligence to do this. Robots would be very good at tightening a nut, if said nut was loose. But identifying whether the problem is a loose nut, versus an infinite number of unpredictable problems? I think that takes a mind. You cant simply program it to handle every single possible problem that would arise.

It does take a mind, in a sense. But not in the repair robot, in the robot being repaired. I don't know if you have a vehicle with a diagnostic mode, but I do, and it is able to tell me with an alphanumeric code precisely what's wrong with it. That would translate into a list of repairs for the maintinence robot.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827349]

>I think ultimately my disagreement when arguing with friends like Inurdaes, is about cost efficiency. You cant simply say "automation is good, because it doesnt have a wage." Wage is just one of many types of costs, and simply because automation is without the cost of wage doesnt mean it is without costs all together.

I agree, but the costs that it does incur can themselves be eliminated by more automation. It is not a "turtles all the way down" scenario either as the machine which is our society is finite in scope. It can, in principle, be automated to the point where people are no longer needed to sustain any of its functions, but we persist because we designed this new system specifically for our own benefit.

>When, Its not to say we should not do this, I am more arguing that we should behave in a cost efficient way.

It pays for itself. The companies building these automated factories are doing so out of rational, financial self interest. It makes economic sense to do so, so they will. In this sense capitalism is a means to an end; It is the system that eventually makes a post scarcity economy possible.

>And I think some of you folks are thinking with your love for robots and science, and not thinking with science or rationality itself.

By all means, point out the holes in my thinking. But be receptive to the possibility that this is a workable system, a desirable way to handle the increasing prevalence of automation, and has an air of hucksterism and naievete only because of the people who typically champion it and not because of inherent flaws in the idea.

>Which... is a very respectable and cute mistake.

I don't patronize you, bro. Keep it clean.

[Anonymous No.3827352]

>>3827177
>Creativity can be encouraged, though.
With money?

Not from what I hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

>>3827184
>Produce more food? We just eat more and get fat.

Only in America.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827356]

>>3827303
OH I'M SORRY YOUR HIGHNESS, I WASN'T AWARE I WAS REQUIRED TO SPOONFEED YOU.

[Anonymous No.3827371]

>>3827310

I only question the idea that a central authority should determine what everybody is worth. Perhaps if the track record for this kind of system wasn't universally bad, I would think differently. But the more you put power in one place, and the less input each person has on the decisions of this power, the worse things are for everyone. RBE has not shown how it is not just this again, dressed up in the clothes of post-scarcity.

>>3827352

Not with money. With a culture that has only greater creative output as it's prime indicator of success, and which allows people to indulge their creativity without needing to fear starvation or destitution.

[Anonymous No.3827372]

>>3827242
Extra TVs sitting on store shelves is not a result of corruption of law. There is no law made by TV manufacturers that all stores must have a dozen of dozen different brand of the exact same TV in stock at all times. I'm using the TV example but I can use it from everything from cars to toothbrush to food.

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3827376]

>>3827296
>>3827289

That's not answering anything. I'm guessing what you're suggesting is a centrally planned system, but I'm disturbed by your reluctance to just say so forthright.

>Well, I don't think it's a baseless value judgement to say that solar power plants work best in perpetually sunny regions or that hydroelectric dams belong in locations with falling water. Somehow I think we will be able to make determinations like this without the present economic system.
Of course. But you need some economic system. You could ask people to vote on whether they want to damn up the Amazon or the Volga. You could let a CEO of a power company make the decision. You could have the decision made by a central committee. You could flip a coin. You could sacrifice a cow to the God of Vaguely Described Economies and read the answer off the entrails.

>This is true of any system. Surely you don't feel that all economic systems are therefore identical?
Economic systems are different BECAUSE they have different ways of answering this question. There's the market, pairwise barter, auctions, fiat, lottery, coercion among others. These choices define the economic system. You can't just sweep them under the table.

>People order them.
A concrete answer? Finally?

So is production determined by people placing orders? Wholly or in part? Is there a limit to how much an individual can order? How is that limit determined?

>Credits are allotted monthly to limit the rate of consumption so that greed does not overwhelm the production capacity of the machines
Now we're getting somewhere. How is the allocation of credits determined? Can they be used only to order consumer goods, or for anything?

>Everyone is able to afford the necessities whether or not they work,
*Same level of economic development*. You get control of Ireland RIGHT NOW. This very second. How will your system differ from what is in place currently?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827381]

>RBE has not shown how it is not just this again, dressed up in the clothes of post-scarcity.

I agree. It's basically COLOSSUS: The Corbin Project, as a government.

A central authority isn't needed to determine what goods are 'worth', how many to make, or anything like that. The facilities that fabricate these goods can operate on a per 'customer' basis. Goods are made when they are ordered, and by establishing averages over time, the factories can anticipate demand and keep production going to minimize delays in getting people their products.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827383]

>>3827347

>Except it already happens.

Im not going to act like automation is without its place. I acknowledge that in some circumstances it can be very efficient. I dont believe the entire economy can be replaced by automation.

I guess you could say, automation will have diminishing returns, as we have to invest more into robotics to get what a human could do with more ease.

> I don't know if you have a vehicle with a diagnostic mode,

I do happen to have a car that does this. Two things.

1. I dont think the diagnostic mode has a solution. For instance, my car recently started yelling at me about a flat tire. Despite the fact that the internal pressure sensory claimed all four tires had equal and relatively good pressure. It also isnt designed to tell me why the tire was flat. Which would be important if I or a robot would want to fix it. Unlike a robot, it costs me practically nothing to find out, and it would cost perhaps hundreds of dollars worth of stuff to make my car capable of such a thing.

2. Likewise, for every part that can break, you want to build a part to check if its broken, which just increases the amount of parts and complexity. And what if one of those parts breaks? It would take an immensely costly amount of automation, to substitute the simple task of me manually checking my tires ALONE. And who knows what the reliability rate would be? Ive had machines lie to me.

>But be receptive to the possibility that this is a workable system

Alright bro... deal!

[Anonymous No.3827384]

>>3827372

And if the RBE would reduce this kind of waste by providing just in time delivery, or not manufacturing the product before it is ordered, well, why have a central authority control this?

If we had the level of automation and communication to allow this in the first place, then we'd be able to do it ad hoc, rather than have to run things past friend computer.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827391]

>>3827352

>Not from what I hear

As much as I like Dan Ariely (I got to talk to him him once, and I am reading his book), his conclusions from his studies are incredibly questionable. Such as the study mentioned in this video (although they dont attribute it to Dan Ariely.)

[Anonymous No.3827411]

>>3827305
>I think the difficulty associated with designing robots that can build other robots would be immense. So immense, that it would be more worthwhile to build them yourself.

Not really. Probably the opposite, in fact. Most of the difficulty would be in trailblazing, designing the first iteration. After that, we can build off of each generation.

>You talk about robots servicing other robots. I think robots lack the intelligence to do this. Robots would be very good at tightening a nut, if said nut was loose. But identifying whether the problem is a loose nut, versus an infinite number of unpredictable problems? I think that takes a mind. You cant simply program it to handle every single possible problem that would arise.

You don't have to, really. I'd imagine robotic maintenance would take the form of a flow chart, and replacing the malfunctioning system. It offends my sense of elegance, but it would work.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827418]

>>3827376

>That's not answering anything. I'm guessing what you're suggesting is a centrally planned system, but I'm disturbed by your reluctance to just say so forthright.

Not at all. I think you're determined to see it that way and are resistant to my efforts to explain how it differs.

>Of course.

A concession! Glorious progress! :3

>But you need some economic system.

In a sense, there is one. There is still currency, and an exchange of that currency for personal services and specialty goods. The primary difference is that people are supplied with that currency and thereby empowered to take place in capitalistic exchange whether or not they labor. The market still exists, the money just comes from someplace else.

>You could ask people to vote on whether they want to damn up the Amazon or the Volga. You could let a CEO of a power company make the decision. You could have the decision made by a central committee. You could flip a coin. You could sacrifice a cow to the God of Vaguely Described Economies and read the answer off the entrails.

Those are questions of political structure, not economic structure. Of course there will still be politics, this system does nothing to change that.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827422]

>Economic systems are different BECAUSE they have different ways of answering this question. There's the market, pairwise barter, auctions, fiat, lottery, coercion among others. These choices define the economic system. You can't just sweep them under the table.

I'm not, I thought you were. Mainly I'm trying to convince you that this system differs meaningfully from Communism. To me it is self evident. I am baffled as to how anyone could deny it. There are a few points of superficial similarity but the meat and potatoes of Communism is that everyone works and the fruits of that labor are redistributed. If machines perform the labor, humans benefit from it and aren't required to work, but are free to engage in small scale private enterprise, the resulting system is so far removed from Communism as to make it completely impossible for me to assent to the notion that they are the same system under different names.

>A concrete answer? Finally?

All of my answers so far have been straightforward and honest. I resent the implication that they have not been.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827425]

>>3827418

Hey Mad I got a question.

You keep mentioning that people can still provide labor if they want...

Does that imply that I can sell my labor as well?

[Anonymous No.3827430]

>>3827305
>I think the difficulty associated with designing robots that can build other robots would be immense.

No more difficult than a robot that can build any other machine. Are you suggesting that there are not robots building other machines in the modern day?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827431]

>So is production determined by people placing orders? Wholly or in part?

In part. There is also 'anticipated demand'. This is established by collecting data on what people order and in what amounts over a long period. With sufficient information of this type you can forecast demand for particular goods and ramp up production in advance, the same way fast food joints operate.

>Is there a limit to how much an individual can order? How is that limit determined?

Yes, a monetary limit. You can afford only so much per month on the credits allotted. The amount of credits allotted depends entirely on what the ratio of machines to humans is. The more machines per human, the more everyone can consume without outstripping production capacity.

>Now we're getting somewhere. How is the allocation of credits determined?

A value derived from the porportional difference between the number of automated production facilities and the number of consumers they support.


>Can they be used only to order consumer goods, or for anything?

The variety of products available will gradually increase over time as the number and variety of production facilities increases.

>*Same level of economic development*. You get control of Ireland RIGHT NOW. This very second. How will your system differ from what is in place currently?

Labor is not economically coerced. Everyone has what they need to live at a reasonable level of comfort whether or not they work. All businesses are small businesses or able to grow only as far as there is demand for products that cannot be mass produced. The gap between 'rich' and 'poor' is minute but still extant.

>>3827425

>Does that imply that I can sell my labor as well?

Of course. As I said, this system does not preclude Capitalism provided you can come up with a product that either cannot be mass produced or which you're able to persuade people to buy from you instead of ordering it from a fabrication center.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827453]

>>3827430

A robot in a roomba factory, is simply a robot instructed to "swing the arm around in this direction for X second"

Its very traditional programming. There is nothing particularly complicated because you are giving it instructions to follow.

Maintainence is more complicated, because you dont have instructions. The problem isnt defined, and the solution is therefore vague. To make a program that is a set of instructions would be magnitudes more complex, and a solution isnt garaunteed. The problem could always be some silly thing that the programmer didnt consider, that any ol' engineer would be able to realize immediately.

>>3827411

I think my above statements can apply to you too. I guess if you are simply manufacturing a robot, its not a big deal. But the costs and benefits still need to prove that there is enough demand so that mass manufacturing robots will make an automated assembly cost efficient. And then, there will probably always be something that it will be cost efficient for a human being to do.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827460]

>>3827383

>Im not going to act like automation is without its place.

Not what I said. You said robots cannot be designed that built other robots. I pointed out that in fact this is how all mass produced robots are already made. Should I assume that this change of topic comprises an implicit concession of that point?

>I acknowledge that in some circumstances it can be very efficient. I dont believe the entire economy can be replaced by automation.

Neither do I. But there aren't enough jobs you can't automate to sustain a traditional Capitalist economy.

>I guess you could say, automation will have diminishing returns, as we have to invest more into robotics to get what a human could do with more ease.

Certainly, but long before we reach that point we will have automated away too many jobs to continue under the present economic model. You can't have everyone be a roboticist. We don't need that many, corporations won't employ everyone in that capacity out of the goodness of their hearts, and not everyone is able to retrain for that specialty as it's intellectually very demanding. Even if you expand that to include creative and service sector jobs you don't have enough to sustain a Capitalist economy.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827464]

>>3827431

>Capitalism provided you can come up with a product that either cannot be mass produced

What if I decide to sell my labor to a guy who has hired me and a bunch of other guys to work in a factory... where mass produce something? Then what?

[Anonymous No.3827477]

>>3827320
>"What is the marginal value of one more unit of yogurt, compared to the marginal value of one more unit of cheese, as a function of the current production levels of yogurt, cheese, and milk?"
Again depends on how much of each is needed. Match the demands while minimizing waste. There's no room for value here, worth never comes into play.

>>3827323
Unless you're using value as in 'a number' then you're projecting.

[Anonymous No.3827493]

>>3827464

Foolish fool! Citizens cannot be trusted with the means of production!

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827496]

>I do happen to have a car that does this. Two things.

>1. I dont think the diagnostic mode has a solution. For instance, my car recently started yelling at me about a flat tire. Despite the fact that the internal pressure sensory claimed all four tires had equal and relatively good pressure. It also isnt designed to tell me why the tire was flat. Which would be important if I or a robot would want to fix it. Unlike a robot, it costs me practically nothing to find out, and it would cost perhaps hundreds of dollars worth of stuff to make my car capable of such a thing.

Today, yes. Tomorrow, no. While not all technologies can be relied upon to drop in price, something like that almost inevitably will. It's just another application of computing. Yesterday's expensive, failure prone luxuries are today's polished, reliable standard features.

>2. Likewise, for every part that can break, you want to build a part to check if its broken, which just increases the amount of parts and complexity.

Except that the part which checks if it is broken is very likely smaller than a grain of rice and runs off less power than you use to blink.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827505]

>And what if one of those parts breaks? It would take an immensely costly amount of automation, to substitute the simple task of me manually checking my tires ALONE. And who knows what the reliability rate would be? Ive had machines lie to me.

If a product cannot be repaired, it is recycled.

>A robot in a roomba factory, is simply a robot instructed to "swing the arm around in this direction for X second". Its very traditional programming. There is nothing particularly complicated because you are giving it instructions to follow.

Precisely. Most automated production infrastructure will be no more complicated than that. We don't need sophisticated humanoid robots to achieve the system I'm describing.

>Maintainence is more complicated, because you dont have instructions. The problem isnt defined, and the solution is therefore vague.

It is defined if you design machines to self-diagnose.

>To make a program that is a set of instructions would be magnitudes more complex, and a solution isnt garaunteed. The problem could always be some silly thing that the programmer didnt consider, that any ol' engineer would be able to realize immediately.

There will inevitably be machines that are beyond repair, either due to severe damage or due to having some obscure problem not accounted for by the integrated diagnostic software. Those will be recycled. You don't need to know what's wrong with a machine to recycle it.

>>3827464

>What if I decide to sell my labor to a guy who has hired me and a bunch of other guys to work in a factory... where mass produce something? Then what?

You're out of business the moment someone submits their own product of the same type for free fabrication on demand. Would it be permitted? Absolutely. But if you think it's realistic that it could compete, you're holding your own thought experiments to a far more lax standard than mine.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827508]

>>3827460

>Not what I said.

Alright, Im sorry you are right. I take back what I said about robots not being able to build other robots. I dont know what I am thinking.

> But there aren't enough jobs you can't automate to sustain a traditional Capitalist economy.

Could you elaborate this point? I dont understand.

>We don't need that many, corporations won't employ everyone in that capacity out of the goodness of their hearts

I dont think automation replaces labor. Unemployment will not go up because of automation. Conversely, you could say because automation makes a single unit of labor more efficient, wages will go up, and people will choose to work more. Unemployment will go down.

And honestly I always say "Dont worry about employment."

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827509]

>>3827477

>Unless you're using value as in 'a number' then you're projecting.

That is in fact how I was using that word. You'd wind up with a numerical figure, the recommended allotment of credits per citizen, based on the proportion of consumers to the fabrication plants that service them.

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3827510]

>>3827422
>>3827418

>Those are questions of political structure, not economic structure.
We're talking about the construction of a power plant, this is an economic decision. Of course, politics and economics are intertwined, in some systems more than others. That's what I'm trying to get an answer to. In a market economy most of these decisions are made by the heads of firms. In a centrally planned economy they are made by the government. How are these decisions made in VP? You claim that it is fundamentally different from anything that's been before, I am sceptical. Economic theory never assumes agents are human. It applies equally well to artificial entities.

> Mainly I'm trying to convince you that this system differs meaningfully from Communism
It seems to me the defining feature of Communism is unlimited entitlement to the fruits of production. Like a family household: how much you take from the fridge is unregulated. What was initially described sounded very much like Communism until you mentioned there was money involved.

>All of my answers so far have been straightforward and honest. I resent the implication that they have not been.
A straightforward answer would have been something like:
Based on the strength of the economy, a central committee allocated, equally, a number of credits to every person. That person uses those credits to place orders for consumer goods. Production is geared to meet those orders.

That leaves some questions unanswered but, for instance, would already answer >>3826990. These are the questions that are important. The fact that the economy is rich enough to provide for everyone's needs without requiring human labour is largely irrelevant. We can replace machines with copious amounts of slaves, and we can attain a "post scarcity" economy for the masters, that would function on presumably the same principles.

[Anonymous No.3827522]

The only thing that's worse than communism is mother fucking hippie ass ecocommunism.

[Anonymous No.3827523]

>>3827371
>I only question the idea that a central authority should determine what everybody is worth.

It doesn't, 'worth' is an almost meaningless word in the system being proposed. Also how does a database of equations decide a subjective value? Would you care to write up an excel document showing this?

[Anonymous No.3827528]

There's no point even discussing the "Venus Project" or anything similar until we have robots that can build our houses, grow our food, purify our water, provide us with electricity, and so on.

You can't have a society where everyone gets everything for free unless there's someone willing to actually provide all that great free stuff. The only candidate I see for that job is robots. So bring this discussion up again when we reach that point.

[Anonymous No.3827545]

>>3827523

But they do get all of the resources, collate all of the work, and then they assign the fruits of this to people based on something. So they obviously think they have some idea of who deserves what.

If this technology can really provide such plenty that everybody gets what they want, then why pass it through a central authority in the first place? And if it's working with serious scarcity, then how can we trust the central authority to always assign resources equitably, since no central authority in history has ever done so?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827552]

>>3827528
>until we have robots that can build our houses
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/business/realestate/main2487598.shtml

>grow our food,
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/30/suffer-11-farming-robot-plays-a-multitude-of-roles-takes-comma/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfNBlB32TGM

>purify our water, provide us with electricity,
Just automate LFTRs and use the waste heat for economical desalinization of water.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827557]

>>3827496

>Except that the part which checks if it is broken is very likely smaller than a grain of rice and runs off less power than you use to blink.

Yeah but size less relevant than complexity or reliability. Also the size of a single unit of robotics doesnt say anything about relative size of robotics. If I need a tiny itty bitty computer chip for every part of my car, the weight and size can double.

> it is recycled.

How cost efficient is that? That can be expensive. You have to pay the price somewhere.

>Precisely. Most automated production infrastructure will be no more complicated than that.

Alright, I know I just said it was easy, but, I was exaggerating a point only to show how relatively complicated repair is relative to instructions. I dont mean to under estimate the immense programming and design challenges it takes to arrange robotic arms in sequence.

I memorized a story at a GM plant. Where they wanted to automate the part of the assembly line that puts on windshields. Simple enough as having an arm pick up the windshield, and stick it on the car. But the investment was millions of dollars, and it turned out the robots had a hard time knowing where the windshield needed to go. Consequently GM had a crisis on its hands as it had not way of completing the cars because their simple robotics failed them. By time they fixed the problem they had alright hired labor to do the job, and it would cost even more to go back to robotics.

When it comes to just making a robotic arm move around. Sure, I guess thats simple. In the case of GM, requiring that the robot have to visually identify something make things so complicated it ended up costing GM loads and loads of money.

>It is defined if you design machines to self-diagnose.

1. That makes stuff more expensive, which is going to make automation and robotics less appealing.

CONT

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827559]

>>3827508

>Could you elaborate this point? I dont understand.

I mean that while there are obviously some kinds of jobs that can't be automated, those jobs don't represent a large enough percentage of the economy that we could have a sustainable Capitalist economy where those were the only jobs available. We can't have a functioning economy where everyone has one of just a handful of jobs, things like service or robotics. It cannot work, in large part because we don't need that many service workers, or roboticists, etc. and companies won't hire everyone for unnecessary jobs just for funsies.

>I dont think automation replaces labor.

It very clearly does. Ever been to a meat packing plant? It used to be that the machinery would spit out sausages or whatever on a conveyor belt and immigrant workers would arrange them for shrink wrapping. Now, those people are gone. The arrangement is done by machine, possible now because of AI that permits machines to perform basic spatial reasoning, to recognize sausages optically even when they are arranged chaotically on a fast moving conveyor belt, and to pick and place them fast enough to keep up. People used to do that job, now machines do, and any jobs created by those machines are ones that the immigrant workers are not qualified for and cannot realistically retrain for due both to the expense of such a degree and in some cases to their age.

[Anonymous No.3827572]

>>3827552
You miss the point entirely. "We" don't have those robots. Prove me wrong -- send a squad out into the desert somewhere and build me a house, hook it up to year-round free electricity (enough for the house and the robots), water, and a farm out back that grows enough food (again, year-round) for a family. Also keep in mind that the robots must be able to maintain themselves or each other. And, you'll also need to provide a free supply of all the necessary building materials. I'm going to want my house to be rather large, and probably Tuscan.

What do you mean I don't get to have any size and shape house that I want!? What do you mean I don't get my own army of robot servants!? Your paradise is starting to sound like just another crappy government handout.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827580]

2. What if "self diagnosing"? Its just more circuitry and more programming. Stuff thats just designed to give certain errors when something is detected. It doesnt actually inform you about the problem, it just gives you some insight about the problem. All of this equipment being vulnerable to failure itself.

>You're out of business the moment someone submits their own product of the same type for free fabrication on demand.

What makes it free? It costs resources to make something. I believe it costs a lot more resources when you decide to make something completely free of human labor (actually I think its impossible, but by "free of human labor" I guess I refer to "nearly no human labor")

I thought your system was, everyone is allocated money, and they buy what they want. What if my product, made by labor and traditional machine tools is cheaper than your super robot factory?

I feel like your whole argument is based off the idea that robots can make things cheaper, and easier than people. And if thats true then companies that exist today should be capable of realizing and actualizing that today. The fact that they dont I think represents that today its not feasible. You could argue it just needs some stimulus. Just a bit more research and we can finally have the technology. Thats a fine belief, but that I think leads you to argue for some government subsidy or something that would create such a stimulus

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827581]

>Unemployment will not go up because of automation.

It has been, though.

>Conversely, you could say because automation makes a single unit of labor more efficient, wages will go up, and people will choose to work more. Unemployment will go down.

Except that's not what has happened.

>And honestly I always say "Dont worry about employment."

I think there are a lot of people on the street since the beginning of this recession who would not be inclined to agree with that sentiment.

>>3827510

>We're talking about the construction of a power plant, this is an economic decision.

Not if nobody is employed by it.

>Of course, politics and economics are intertwined, in some systems more than others. That's what I'm trying to get an answer to. In a market economy most of these decisions are made by the heads of firms. In a centrally planned economy they are made by the government. How are these decisions made in VP?

If there is insufficient electricity, the machines construct an additional power plant.

>You claim that it is fundamentally different from anything that's been before, I am sceptical.

That is expected, and skepticism is admirable. I would object to your skepticism only if I did not feel that this is an entirely tenable system that can withstand an infinite amount of scrutiny. Do not go easy on me.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827582]

>>3827572
>implying I'm advocating the Venus Project

I was posting some links to show that we're getting to the stage, not that we can enact it immediately.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827586]

>Economic theory never assumes agents are human. It applies equally well to artificial entities.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but okay.

>It seems to me the defining feature of Communism is unlimited entitlement to the fruits of production.

But that isn't how it is under Communism. You're entitled only to your equal portion of everyone's labor. Under this system you are entitled to as much as the machinery is able to make for you without compromising its ability to supply for others.

>Like a family household: how much you take from the fridge is unregulated. What was initially described sounded very much like Communism until you mentioned there was money involved.

I did mention the student meal plan earlier.

>A straightforward answer would have been something like:
Based on the strength of the economy, a central committee allocated, equally, a number of credits to every person. That person uses those credits to place orders for consumer goods. Production is geared to meet those orders.

I'll try to cater the way I word my answers to your preferences in the future in order to avoid misunderstanding. However please realize I am now arguing not just with you but with several people who also want their questions answered and that is a large burden, so please forgive me if my answers are more generalized than they would be if I were only arguing with you.

>That leaves some questions unanswered but, for instance, would already answer >>3826990. These are the questions that are important. The fact that the economy is rich enough to provide for everyone's needs without requiring human labour is largely irrelevant. We can replace machines with copious amounts of slaves, and we can attain a "post scarcity" economy for the masters, that would function on presumably the same principles.

Essentially, yes. It's a slave labor economy without the ethical ramifications.

[Anonymous No.3827587]

>>3827572
I forgot that I'll also want several luxury vehicles. Some sporty, others just really unnecessarily large and showy. I'll probably need some trucks, too, to haul all my free stuff around.

This means, of course, that I'll need robots qualified to do constant automotive maintenance.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827598]

>>3827559

>It very clearly does. Ever been to a meat packing plant?

Thats in the short term. In the long term things work differently.

I mean to say, if there are 100 people in a meat plant, and then 99 of them get replaced by robots, certainly you could say 99 people have been replaced by robots. Two things (like always):

1. Robots and people arent mutually exclusive. The factory can hire people, AND buy robots, even if the robots are immensely more efficient, it doesnt imply that the marginal cost of labor is more than the marginal utility

2. Lets say, those 99 people get fired. In the long run, I think robotic capital would become cheaper, and the firm can, rather than fire 99 people build 99 more robotic factories. This is basically a traditional macro economic idea.

[Anonymous No.3827601]

>>3827453
>Maintainence is more complicated, because you dont have instructions. The problem isnt defined, and the solution is therefore vague. To make a program that is a set of instructions would be magnitudes more complex, and a solution isnt garaunteed. The problem could always be some silly thing that the programmer didnt consider, that any ol' engineer would be able to realize immediately.

A machine is a system. It has inputs, it has operations, it has outputs. An engine, for example. The inputs are gas, air and a spark. The operation is the timing cycle. The output is motion exhaust and (more) heat. If it doesn't work like this, I begin a systematic investigation. Am I getting gas as an output? Check the spark and the timing. Is it not firing? Check the gas and spark. In the case of the timing, there is a mark on the flywheel when cylinder one should be at top dead center. In the case of the spark, it's a simple matter of checking for a spark jump.

What I'm getting at, is that these are fairly simple processes that could easily be mechanized. They're done by hand for the present because it is indeed simpler than building a robot that could do it -- at present. I understand that is part of your argument, but you also seemed to be arguing that it can't be done, which I disagree with.

[Anonymous No.3827604]

An interesting little short story that takes this whole Venus Project idea and runs with it. Hopefully you geniuses can pause from your shitstorm long enough to take a gander.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Lots of backstory starts there, if you just wanna read the meat of this guy's interpretation of the Venus project, that starts here: http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827607]

>>3827580

>2. What if "self diagnosing"? Its just more circuitry and more programming. Stuff thats just designed to give certain errors when something is detected. It doesnt actually inform you about the problem, it just gives you some insight about the problem. All of this equipment being vulnerable to failure itself.

Think of it like the Chinese Room thought experiment. The machine does not need to understand what is wrong. The diagnosis software doesn't even know what's wrong. The readings from the various sensors produce an error code, which when fed to the repair robot, indicate a series of movements. It does not need to have any more complex understanding of the situation than that in order to perform repairs.

>You're out of business the moment someone submits their own product of the same type for free fabrication on demand.

>What makes it free? It costs resources to make something.

Because the person making it must be compensated. If nobody has to labor in order to produce something, there is no concrete reason why it has to cost anything. You still need some system for limiting consumption to the maximum the system can tolerate, but that's it.

>I believe it costs a lot more resources when you decide to make something completely free of human labor (actually I think its impossible, but by "free of human labor" I guess I refer to "nearly no human labor")

Initially. But we only have to build that infrastructure once. And we're not paying for it to be built out of nothing. Corporations are funding its construction as we speak in order to maximize their profits.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827611]

>I thought your system was, everyone is allocated money, and they buy what they want. What if my product, made by labor and traditional machine tools is cheaper than your super robot factory?

I thought you were an economics student. How is one factory full of human workers going to outproduce thousands of large scale fabrication plants?

>I feel like your whole argument is based off the idea that robots can make things cheaper, and easier than people. And if thats true then companies that exist today should be capable of realizing and actualizing that today.

They are. It's called "automation".

>The fact that they dont I think represents that today its not feasible.

See above, they have done it and continue to do so.

>You could argue it just needs some stimulus. Just a bit more research and we can finally have the technology. Thats a fine belief, but that I think leads you to argue for some government subsidy or something that would create such a stimulus

It doesn't need stimulus. The automated production facilities needed for the realization of this system are being built today by companies motivated by increased profits. They pay for themselves. I am not proposing we quit capitalism cold turkey and summon all of this infrastructure from nothing, or build all of it from the ground up just for this purpose. I am proposing we make use of the existing automated production capacity already being built. We will reach a point of critical mass where enough of it exists to support a comfortable standard of living for everyone. At that point we can begin to transition to a post scarcity economic model.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827613]

>>3827581

>It has been, though.

Source? Or are you relying on thought experiment?

Okay, there was an economist named Solow, who did work analyzing the contribution of technology to economic growth. He found that in the last 50 years or so, technology has accounted for 4/5th of economic growth in the US. Basically thanks to computers, and tools, and partially automation, the US has growth to what it is today. Now, I think all this technology is under the catagory of "capital", and its essentially a tool of labor. Its a tool of labor whether it takes 1 guy to run an entire robotic factory, or its one guy chopping down a tree with a spoon. I think we if we were to try and make an economic model, analyzing the relationship between unemployment, and technological progress we would see there is no connection, because unemployment is not 5 times as much as it was before the technological boom America has seen

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827616]

>>3827604
>one of my favourite stories
Fuck yeah

[Anonymous No.3827620]

>>3827453
>that any ol' engineer would be able to realize immediately.

Engineers make terrible mechanics on average, I think you meant 'why the fuck is this screw in a place I can't reach?' - technicians.

[Anonymous No.3827621]

>>3827598
The proportion of people employed in agriculture and any forms of manufacturing have been falling ever since the industrial revolution.

The problem with your example is that those 99 people were just manual labourers, most of whom lack the capacity to be in charge of a whole factory. This is more than just an education problem, some people are just stupider.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827622]

>>3827598

>1. Robots and people arent mutually exclusive. The factory can hire people, AND buy robots, even if the robots are immensely more efficient, it doesnt imply that the marginal cost of labor is more than the marginal utility

True, but as I said before, will the number of jobs that remain be enough to sustain the entire population?

>2. Lets say, those 99 people get fired. In the long run, I think robotic capital would become cheaper, and the firm can, rather than fire 99 people build 99 more robotic factories. This is basically a traditional macro economic idea.

But the people fired from the meat packing plant are not qualified to build robotic factories. They cannot afford to retrain, and most are too old to make such a drastic change so late in life.

[Anonymous No.3827631]

>>3827616

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827641]

>>3827631

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827642]

>>3827613

>Source? Or are you relying on thought experiment?

Marshall Brain's site contains a chronology of job losses to automation. You can question his objectivity, but he cites his sources.

>Okay, there was an economist named Solow, who did work analyzing the contribution of technology to economic growth. He found that in the last 50 years or so, technology has accounted for 4/5th of economic growth in the US. Basically thanks to computers, and tools, and partially automation, the US has growth to what it is today.

I would like to see this study. I think it more likely that he's crediting to automation what should be credited to the industrial revolution.

The common argument against those who felt the industrial revolution would rob them of work was that for every job it eliminated it created five more. This is true, but that's because the industrial revolution entailed only the application of motive force to industry. Brains were still required. How the automation revolution differs is that we've filled that gap. Now the machines have brains too, albeit rudimentary ones, and there aren't enough jobs that cannot be automated so that a majority can be employed.

>Now, I think all this technology is under the catagory of "capital", and its essentially a tool of labor. Its a tool of labor whether it takes 1 guy to run an entire robotic factory, or its one guy chopping down a tree with a spoon. I think we if we were to try and make an economic model, analyzing the relationship between unemployment, and technological progress we would see there is no connection, because unemployment is not 5 times as much as it was before the technological boom America has seen

Automation was not anywhere near as sophisticated when that boom began. As the number of jobs robots are capable of performing increases and the price of those robots decreases the number of jobs they take over will steadily increase.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827655]

>>3827607

>Think of it like the Chinese Room thought experiment

Okay, fair enough. I still think that such a system would be so complicated it would never be worth it

> If nobody has to labor in order to produce something, there is no concrete reason why it has to cost anything.

Things dont cost money because we need to pay a person. The accountancy definition of profit is "Profit = revenue - cost." Corporations are required by law to produce financial statements which include information like what the costs are, and what the revenues are. If you look at any company, I am willing to be that wages are not a large cost. Not even a majority cost. Things cost money, because it takes money to make them. If you think the problem is simply because money exists, then remember that the money represents something. It takes some amount of steel to make this product, thus to sell it, I have to sell it for an something of equivalency. You cant give it away for free simply because you didnt have to pay someone to make it, because you still had to pay something, in some way, perhaps in terms of electricity, or even time. (which is where we get into the economic definition of profit which is a little different)

> How is one factory full of human workers going to outproduce thousands of large scale fabrication plants?

It doesnt need to. I bet youd be hard pressed to find a market in which no one is out pacing the other. I used to work for an aircraft parts company. Their competitor didnt have to pay taxes because they were technically a church. They were for all intensive purposes being out paced, but that doesnt mean the market didnt want output from both of the companies.

If a robot factory is producing a million sausages in a month, for X price, and the puny humans can only produce ten sausages for X price, then maybe they will still want to.

CONT

[Anonymous No.3827658]

>>3827613
>because unemployment is not 5 times as much as it was before the technological boom America has seen
Possibly most of the unskilled labor which was employed in manufacturing moved to the service sector, which might itself become automated (think self check-outs).

I don't have any source for this, just a guess.

[Anonymous No.3827659]

>>3827508
>I dont think automation replaces labor. Unemployment will not go up because of automation. Conversely, you could say because automation makes a single unit of labor more efficient, wages will go up, and people will choose to work more. Unemployment will go down.

You're denying reality at that point.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827661]

>They are. It's called "automation".

Yeah okay, but there is a market demand for automation, and I am saying they have automated as much as they want to. You and Inurdaes for example, think its not enough, for whatever reason. That perhaps in the future we could feasible have nearly everything automated. And if that was cost efficient then companies will recognize that REGARDLESS of how much they have aready automated.

[Anonymous No.3827666]

>>3827509
But I wasn't quoting you...

Also how do I get so far behind in these discussions...

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827670]

>>3827661

>Yeah okay, but there is a market demand for automation, and I am saying they have automated as much as they want to.

Seriously? So the automation trend has stopped? Robots in the workplace will never increase in number or sophistication? Are you aware of the statistics relating to the growth of automation and the fact that they totally contradict what you are saying here?

>You and Inurdaes for example, think its not enough, for whatever reason. That perhaps in the future we could feasible have nearly everything automated. And if that was cost efficient then companies will recognize that REGARDLESS of how much they have aready automated.

They do. As I said above, the trend towards automation has not come to a halt nor is it even slowing. It will eventually plateau where we reach the point of diminishing returns you mentioned earlier but by that point we will be long past the spot where there are no longer enough jobs for the population.

[Anonymous No.3827672]

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

[Anonymous No.3827680]

>>3827661

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-idUSTRE77016B20110801

[Anonymous No.3827685]

I like money. I like competition. I like struggle.
Competition motivates people.

A resource economy assumes a hive-mind hippie world philosophy that can't exist on our planet.

It also assumes sci-fi tier level technology and distribution systems.

Jacques never really said how one can become enlightened socially and how to achieve his technological requirements...so wtf are we talking about anyway, a silly "what if" scenario

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827691]

>Okay, fair enough. I still think that such a system would be so complicated it would never be worth it

Today, certainly. Tomorrow, not so much. I don't think the combination of repair robots and self diagnostic systems is unfeasibly complicated to the point that it will never happen.

>Things dont cost money because we need to pay a person.

Then what pays their wages?

>The accountancy definition of profit is "Profit = revenue - cost." Corporations are required by law to produce financial statements which include information like what the costs are, and what the revenues are. If you look at any company, I am willing to be that wages are not a large cost.

Nonetheless the money for paying those wages comes from the money we pay for the finished product.

>Not even a majority cost. Things cost money, because it takes money to make them.

Because we must pay the people who make it happen, whether it's a laborer or a CEO. Remove the people and there's no longer any hard reason why things must cost money except that of regulating consumption.

>If you think the problem is simply because money exists, then remember that the money represents something.

I don't. Remember, my proposed replacement still uses money, just for a different purpose.

>It takes some amount of steel to make this product, thus to sell it, I have to sell it for an something of equivalency.

That steel does not have an inherent dollar figure attached. We do not mine the ore from the ground and find a price engraved on it. The price is determined by what it costs to turn it into a finished product, and that cost is determined by how many people you need to pay and how much you need to pay them to get from ore to steel.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827696]

>>3827622

>True, but as I said before, will the number of jobs that remain be enough to sustain the entire population?

No, but we dont have enough anyway. Unemployment always exists, and labor force/population is never 1. People will work as much as they want to. And whatever that amount is, its good enough for me.

>But the people fired from the meat packing plant are not qualified to build robotic factories. They cannot afford to retrain, and most are too old to make such a drastic change so late in life.

1. They dont need to build it themselves. I was thinking these people are more like managers

2. I think this is still in the realm of short term. This is all so hypothetical that short term might even be a decade (even though I think in economics long term is 2 years or more). It might take a few decades for the production of robotic equipment to come up to speed, and for people to readjust to different labor roles.

>Marshall Brain's site contains a chronology of job losses to automation. You can question his objectivity, but he cites his sources.

Its funny because, I was just looking at some labor statistics graphs today. Unemployment is a function of the people getting hired and people getting fired. Simply because a lot of people have gotten fired doesnt mean unemployment is going up. Perhaps the companies save so much money they can hire people in new locations (I feel bad because Liberty told me something similar to this the other day).

CONT

[Anonymous No.3827699]

>>3827661
Let's talk about balls.

Ball bearings, specifically. Enormously useful because, as a sphere, the balls only contact at one point on a plane and so the bearing as a whole has very little friction. Very difficult to manufacture, however. Grinding them requires a specialized machine, sometimes two depending on the tolerances involved. And while you could hire a person to do it, it would be very time consuming and the products would be very inferior quality.

And yet we once used them.

A shitty bearing is better than no bearing, but that doesn't mean the bearing will never be better than shitty. Often, it is merely waiting for conditions to develop. That, I think, is the crux of our argument. For these machines, automation isn't an optional process, but the best and cheapest way of producing them. And while conditions aren't right now, they probably will be in the future -- probably not that far in the future.

[Anonymous No.3827701]

Monetary economies are better, that's why we went from barter to monetary historically.

A resource based economy is meaningless and doesn't solve any problems.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827703]

>You cant give it away for free simply because you didnt have to pay someone to make it, because you still had to pay something, in some way, perhaps in terms of electricity, or even time. (which is where we get into the economic definition of profit which is a little different)

As I said earlier, electricity can be produced by power plants constructed by robotic machinery. At the most basic level it's about natural resources, which I think everyone owns to some extent. If no human labor is involved in turning those resources into goods and the power needed to do so comes from a source that was not constructed by humans and does not require humans to operate it, why should we not receive the end product without payment? The only reason left for currency to exist is to thwart the kinds of people who would consume vastly more than is reasonable and jam the system.

>It doesnt need to. I bet youd be hard pressed to find a market in which no one is out pacing the other.

To this enormous degree? I think you're wrong. We're discussing a single factory versus a nationwide automated production infrastructure.

>I used to work for an aircraft parts company. Their competitor didnt have to pay taxes because they were technically a church. They were for all intensive purposes being out paced, but that doesnt mean the market didnt want output from both of the companies.

That company was not up against millions of robots laboring 24/7.

>If a robot factory is producing a million sausages in a month, for X price, and the puny humans can only produce ten sausages for X price, then maybe they will still want to.

If you can convince people to pay the premium, then yes, you're in business. Have at it. I don't think you can do this sort of thing on a scale that will threaten the overall system though. It's hard to compete with free.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827706]

>>3827642

>would like to see this study. I think it more likely that he's crediting to automation what should be credited to the industrial revolution.

Im sorry, I dont have his research. His name is Robert Solow, hes kind of a famous economist. His work should be googlable. He didnt study automation by the way. He studied technological progress in general. I feel that automation is under this catagory.

>The common argument against those who felt the industrial revolution would rob them of work was that for every job it eliminated it created five more. This is true, but that's because the industrial revolution entailed only the application of motive force to industry. Brains were still required. How the automation revolution differs is that we've filled that gap. Now the machines have brains too, albeit rudimentary ones, and there aren't enough jobs that cannot be automated so that a majority can be employed.

I think it was worth pointing out that even between the industrial revolution and now, the cost of labor relative to total costs have gone down dramatically. From a production point of view, we dont care about brains. If I have to hire 1 guy, and one machine, then thats what I do. If I have to hire one guy, and then a whole factory of robots, thats what I do. The replacement of brains doesnt mean anything. How much labor and how much capital is all you consider. You will always need some amount of labor, even if its only a millionth of your capital.

[Anonymous No.3827709]

>>3827685

I don't like competition or struggle. Money is nice, but only because it's what I need to survive in this day and age.

I hate the idea that if I want to make money, I pretty much either have to win the cosmic lottery (invent something awesome, have a good idea, etc. etc.), be cutthroat and ruthless in my business practices, or work on someone else's dream.

I'm studying to be an engineer. This is not because my school says that on average, I'll make $60k a year with my bachelors, most likely building some small component of another large "defense" contract through some faceless corporation. I'm studying to be an engineer because I want to know how to create technology and make life better for me and my fellow humans.

I find it hard to believe that I am alone in my desires.

Also whenever someone uses "sci-fi" to refer to some level of technology that was actually fiction a decade or two ago, I can't help but think of "We live on a spaceship dear..."

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827713]

>>3827685

>I like money. I like competition. I like struggle.
Competition motivates people.

I agree. People would still work, and form businesses under such a system selling goods and services that cannot be mass produced.

>A resource economy assumes a hive-mind hippie world philosophy that can't exist on our planet.

It doesn't. Fresco's conception does, but his is not the definitive form.

>It also assumes sci-fi tier level technology and distribution systems.

Have you been paying attention to technological progress lately? Reading and writing to rat brains? Extracting video from the optical lobe? Rockets with sections that make a powered landing? We're living in a sci fi world.

>>3827696

>No, but we dont have enough anyway. Unemployment always exists, and labor force/population is never 1. People will work as much as they want to. And whatever that amount is, its good enough for me.

Yes, unemployment always exists. Don't be disingenuous. You and I both know that 10% unemployment is not doomsday. 90% is.

>1. They dont need to build it themselves. I was thinking these people are more like managers

They aren't qualified for that either.

[Anonymous No.3827715]

>>3826520
>No millionaire raised in this economy with Ferraris and Yachts will want to change the society they have wrapped around their finger

Whose gonna automate everything in Africa? Whose gonna fund it?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827720]

>2. I think this is still in the realm of short term. This is all so hypothetical that short term might even be a decade (even though I think in economics long term is 2 years or more). It might take a few decades for the production of robotic equipment to come up to speed, and for people to readjust to different labor roles.

Even then, we simply don't need that many people in those few roles. What will everyone else do for a living?

>Its funny because, I was just looking at some labor statistics graphs today. Unemployment is a function of the people getting hired and people getting fired. Simply because a lot of people have gotten fired doesnt mean unemployment is going up. Perhaps the companies save so much money they can hire people in new locations (I feel bad because Liberty told me something similar to this the other day).

That was one of the reassurances offered when Zappos replaced their warehouse workers with Kiva robots. But they spread. Amazon uses them now too. The Gap uses them. A few dozen companies use them at this point. None have offered any evidence to the effect that they created new jobs for those displaced by the robots. Why would they, if they don't need more people?

>>3827706

>I think it was worth pointing out that even between the industrial revolution and now, the cost of labor relative to total costs have gone down dramatically. From a production point of view, we dont care about brains. If I have to hire 1 guy, and one machine, then thats what I do. If I have to hire one guy, and then a whole factory of robots, thats what I do. The replacement of brains doesnt mean anything. How much labor and how much capital is all you consider. You will always need some amount of labor, even if its only a millionth of your capital.

I won't deny that it works in the abstract. But in practice, a job lost to automation does not translate to a job created elsewhere in the company unless they actually need more people.

[Anonymous No.3827723]

>>3826532
This thread should have died right here.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827727]

>>3827715

>Whose gonna automate everything in Africa? Whose gonna fund it?

The same companies that automated everything in the US. Why? Because the US will be on the new economic system, but Africa won't. They can still make enormous profits there. Once automation has destroyed capitalism in Africa to the same extent, they adopt the new economic model too, and so on. It permits the corporations who paid for the infrastructure to continue enjoying obscene profits for at least a few more decades following America's transition to the new model.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827729]

>>3827691

>Because we must pay the people who make it happen, whether it's a laborer or a CEO. Remove the people and there's no longer any hard reason why things must cost money except that of regulating consumption.

No, lets look at the math okay.

If I have make dildos, and it costs me $1 of labor and a $1 of rubber to make each other. To break even, I have to sell each dildo for $2. Now lets say, I replace that labor with a robot. Lets ignore the cost of getting that robot, we will pretend I got it for free. And likewise the robot runs on nothing. It costs nothing to run. So it costs $0 of labor, and $1 of rubber. I still have to sell it for a dollar to break even.

And thats ignoring the costs it takes to run a robot and buy a robot in real life. It would be more reasonable to suggest the robot costs $.5 worth of electricity. And so I have to sell for $1.50 to break even.

>That steel does not have an inherent dollar figure attached

No, but it takes a relative value which we express in dollars.

>The price is determined by what it costs to turn it into a finished product

No, the price of steel is determined by how much people want it. If everyone wants it, the price goes up. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to use the steel. That would mean that right now in real life steel would be free so long as you didnt want to do anything with it (Ive bought aluminium for sentimental purposes before)

[Anonymous No.3827733]

>>3827723

If those guys are actually money-grubbing, disingenuous dickholes, then fuck them right in their ear.

It does not invalidate the idea of the system though. So fuck your sage.

[Anonymous No.3827743]

>>3827706

Are you talking about Jacques system with no money and everything is free, or are you modifying it?

I don't see how either system is sustainable. Are you going to automate the service industry? Automated doctors, lawyers, cops, firefighters, janitors, tour guides, etc?

Who is going to automate the automation process? The startup costs of such a project are unimaginable...

plus there are places that would be a waste to automate...how would incentives work?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827752]

>>3827729

>If I have make dildos, and it costs me $1 of labor and a $1 of rubber to make each other.

Why does the rubber cost $1? Isn't it because a great many had to perform labor of different types in order to create the rubber from raw resources?

>To break even, I have to sell each dildo for $2. Now lets say, I replace that labor with a robot. Lets ignore the cost of getting that robot, we will pretend I got it for free. And likewise the robot runs on nothing. It costs nothing to run. So it costs $0 of labor, and $1 of rubber. I still have to sell it for a dollar to break even.

Not if the rubber is also made from raw materials by robots.

>And thats ignoring the costs it takes to run a robot and buy a robot in real life. It would be more reasonable to suggest the robot costs $.5 worth of electricity. And so I have to sell for $1.50 to break even.

Those costs are covered many times over while still under the capitalist model. As I said, capitalism pays for the infrastructure. The transition occurs after that infrastructure has been built and is sufficiently robust.

[Anonymous No.3827754]

>>3827743

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, aaaand yes.

Again, read:

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

By all means, not perfect, but just to get at least a vague idea of what's being debated here

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827755]

>No, but it takes a relative value which we express in dollars.

Because of the labor involved in mining the ore and turning it into steel.

>No, the price of steel is determined by how much people want it. If everyone wants it, the price goes up. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to use the steel.

I agree, but pay careful attention to my use of language earlier; When I said there is no concrete reason, no hard reason for goods made only by robots to cost anything, what I meant by that is no reason which is not artificial and arbitrary, like charging people based on demand and what they are willing to pay. Obviously it is still possible to demand money anyway, even if robots perform all the work involved, but it's no longer justifiable.

>That would mean that right now in real life steel would be free so long as you didnt want to do anything with it (Ive bought aluminium for sentimental purposes before)

No, because human labor is still involved in mining the ore. Automated mining robots are still unfortunately the stuff of science fiction.

[Anonymous No.3827756]

>>3827727
>It permits the corporations who paid for the infrastructure to continue enjoying obscene profits for at least a few more decades following America's transition to the new model.

This suffers from the backwards induction problem in a sequential game setup.

If the value of money is zero at some time T in the future, then the value of money is also zero at T-1. Since we value money as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future, if it loses value in the future, it no longer functions as a store of value...so you regress from T-1, to T-2, to T-3...to the present.

Why would a company have the incentive to create a system that will potentially turn its profits into zero? And theres always the huge risk that the system won't work or will collapse.

[Anonymous No.3827758]

>>3827709
> I'm studying to be an engineer because I want to know how to create technology and make life better for me and my fellow humans.

Boy oh BOY are you going to get a wake-up call. You have this idealistic bullshit in your head, and yet you're only going to join ESSENTIALLY FASCIST ORGANIZATIONS CALLED CORPORATIONS? So how is it in any way possible that you're going to improve Humanity? If you're just following corporate fuck-orders that are only designed to enslave Humans to the corporate machine?

> I find it hard to believe that I am alone in my desires.

You're not alone, but you ARE powerless. Key issue, doucher.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827759]

>>3827743

>The startup costs of such a project are unimaginable...

Except that they are paid for by profits from selling the products the robots make. As has been said many times already, the construction of the automated machinery occurs while still under the capitalist system. Companies construct the equipment to maximize their profits. Greed will motivate the automation of every kind of job that is possible to automate. From there we need only a new economic model that permits us to live off the products that the robots make.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827768]

>>3827756

>Why would a company have the incentive to create a system that will potentially turn its profits into zero?

Because they don't anticipate transition to such a system or feel that it won't be possible to impose it on them.

>And theres always the huge risk that the system won't work or will collapse.

This is true of everything. But the alternative is that automation proceeds to the point where there aren't enough jobs for even a small minority of the population, and then 10% who legally own the robots live off of their produce while the rest of us suffer in squalor. I think it's worth the risk to try and avoid that.

[Anonymous No.3827769]

>>3827754

so this is at least a million years away.

earths population would have to be like 1million in order for our resources to be abundant enough, and our technology would have to be beyond star trek level.

sounds like a practical idea, lets discuss its details....

[Anonymous No.3827778]

>>3827758

I apologize if I was unclear. I do not wish to work for a large corporation. This would not be fulfilling for me. I do not want to make a shit-ton of money. I would like to make enough to be comfortable, but I will not sacrifice my desire for creative autonomy in the pursuit of cash.

I tend to have a lot of ideas in my head relating to mechanical objects and systems, but due to my income and living situation, I have no way to work on them with my hands and tools. This bothers me like you wouldn't believe. I hope someday I can find a way to live and work with a modicum of contentment.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827783]

>>3827769

>earths population would have to be like 1million in order for our resources to be abundant enough

Actually the resources exist to feed, clothe and house everyone on Earth many times over. We throw away enough food alone to eliminate famine, because the system in place now dictates that we do so.

>and our technology would have to be beyond star trek level.

No, it does not require replicators, only automated factories of the sort in use today, but of a greater level of sophistication. The advances we really need are robotic mining equipment, automated recycling, and automated construction equipment. All of those are tall orders but by no means unfeasible.

[Anonymous No.3827791]

>>3827768
>Because they don't anticipate transition to such a system or feel that it won't be possible to impose it on them.


So the only incentive for the big corporations to implement such a system is the possibility that the end product will never materialize and they will simply reap profits off the process itself.

They have no incentive to finish to process, ever.

You don't build into a resource economy and moneyless society. What first happens is a worldwide enlightenment, where people stop caring about materialism and success and stop fearing their neighbors and stop worshiping idols....

After that takes place and people all genuinely care about each other, then they can work towards some sort of utopia.

You don't build a utopia in this world, with our current human nature. Even if we had it now, it would only last a day.

[Anonymous No.3827800]

>>3827778
> I do not wish to work for a large corporation.

OK, I can respect that, but you should then plan for working essentially without resources. Literally I mean you will only be able to commit about $2500/yr at most towards your projects, since that's about 5% of the median American household income, and that's also about as much as the median household is able to save. Without connection to corporate resources, you're pretty much going to starve yourself for development capital.

You can try to form voluntary associations, to share equipment investments, but sci/eng types aren't known for (1) financial acumen and (2) the ability to get along with others.

Good luck. Really.

[Anonymous No.3827804]

>ITT: Baww why won't something give me free things so I can sit on my ass trolling 4chan 24/7

[Anonymous No.3827810]

>>3827783
>Actually the resources exist to feed, clothe and house everyone on Earth many times over. We throw away enough food alone to eliminate famine, because the system in place now dictates that we do so.

This assumes we consume like the average poor chinaman.
But if we want to consume like the top Americans do then no, our planet can't sustain it. A billion chinese consuming food and energy like America does is not sustainable lol. And in a resource economy we are free to do so...

The population would have to be very small.

If we are to automate the service industry we will require human-tier AI...for automated lawyers, doctors, janitors, cops, safety regulators, inspectors, tour guides, etc...

[Anonymous No.3827821]

>>3827800

Involved in a project with a couple of Mech Es/Mfg Engrs. Thinking of double majoring in Mfg myself. Good people, definitely keeping touch outside of school, hopefully will be able to convince them to go in with me on a machine shop.

Thanks for the well wishing, I do what I can :)

[Anonymous No.3827822]

>Automate everything.
Pollution everywhere.

>Automate everything.
No one has the incentive to.
If there is a profit to be made then the job would be automated already.

>Automate everything.
No I won't do what you tell me.

[Anonymous No.3827827]

>>3827713
>Have you been paying attention to technological progress lately? Reading and writing to rat brains? Extracting video from the optical lobe? Rockets with sections that make a powered landing? We're living in a sci fi world.

How does any of that equate to robots that can completely build me a house with little or no human input? From mining the raw materials, to constructing it to deciding the best place it should be put.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3827833]

>>3827822
>Pollution everywhere.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me.

[Pareto Inefficient !!w+1Tms67tBc No.3827834]

>>3827827

The mining bit will probably be solved soon (10-20 years?). I saw a talk by this guy at IJCAI and it seemed really promising:
http://sydney.edu.au/warrencentre/bulletin/NO61/ed61art1.htm

But tasks that require frequent decision making, yeah. These will take a bit longer to get right.

[Anonymous No.3827842]

>>3827800

Involved in a project with a couple of Mech Es/Mfg Engrs. Thinking of double majoring in Mfg myself. Good people, definitely keeping touch outside of school, hopefully will be able to convince them to go in with me on a machine shop.

Thanks for the well wishing, I do what I can :)

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827867]

Okay, I am back, and I think I have discovered a root disagreement between Mad and I.

I think Mad believes that resources are essentially free the moment they come out of the ground.

Lets say, there are 9 units of steel in the ground and I mine them up. And I have 4 friends named A, B, D, and Louie. I have 9 units of steel and I ask all four of them "How much steel do you want?" A says she would like 4 units, B says 5 units, D says 2 units and Louie says 12 units.

Now, its impossible for me to give them everything they want. Because in total they wanted 23 units and I only have 9. And I cant get more in the short term. I have to allocate it. I cant tell how to divide this steel. Due to scarcity I cant fufill everyone's wish and desire. Things fundamentally have opportunity costs. Things fundamentally have prices because of those opportunity costs. We sell it to who wants it the most, and the way we find out who wants it the most is by a market price.

You dont have to do it this way, you could simply give it to who you want. But then you are a communist. And God hates communists.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827872]

>>3827791

>So the only incentive for the big corporations to implement such a system is the possibility that the end product will never materialize and they will simply reap profits off the process itself.

Well, what are they gonna do? Cease automation? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I don't wanna be the guy who has to tell shareholders that we're not proceeding with automation because of the possibility that people might one day seize our facilities and establish a new economic system based on them.

>They have no incentive to finish to process, ever.
>>3827791

>So the only incentive for the big corporations to implement such a system is the possibility that the end product will never materialize and they will simply reap profits off the process itself.

Well, what are they gonna do? Cease automation? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I don't wanna be the guy who has to tell shareholders that we're not proceeding with automation because of the possibility that people might one day seize our facilities and establish a new economic system based on them.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827874]

>They have no incentive to finish to process, ever.

I agree, but they don't have to finish it in order to catalyze the change we're discussing. We are already nearing catastrophic rates of unemployment. Automation is not slowing. It factually will reach a point where we cannot continue on the traditional capitalist system because there aren't enough jobs for even 50% of the people in the US.

>You don't build into a resource economy and moneyless society. What first happens is a worldwide enlightenment, where people stop caring about materialism and success and stop fearing their neighbors and stop worshiping idols....

No, that isn't necessary, nor will it ever happen. In fact it's our worse nature that makes this system possible; Greed is what motivates the construction of automated facilities in spite of the jobs it costs. The desire to maximize profits is what gets us there. Post scarcity could not occur without capitalism and greed.

>After that takes place and people all genuinely care about each other, then they can work towards some sort of utopia.

We will never get to the point where human nature is fundamentally changed. We can however get to a point where technology supplies such an abundance that theft no longer makes sense, and a society in which there are no real consequences when the new capitalist system built on top of the post scarcity substrate periodically fails.

>You don't build a utopia in this world, with our current human nature. Even if we had it now, it would only last a day.

You don't build Utopia, period. That doesn't mean we can't improve on the current

[Anonymous No.3827877]

>>3827867
Everyone hates communists.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827878]

>They have no incentive to finish to process, ever.

I agree, but they don't have to finish it in order to catalyze the change we're discussing. We are already nearing catastrophic rates of unemployment. Automation is not slowing. It factually will reach a point where we cannot continue on the traditional capitalist system because there aren't enough jobs for even 50% of the people in the US.

>You don't build into a resource economy and moneyless society. What first happens is a worldwide enlightenment, where people stop caring about materialism and success and stop fearing their neighbors and stop worshiping idols....

No, that isn't necessary, nor will it ever happen. In fact it's our worse nature that makes this system possible; Greed is what motivates the construction of automated facilities in spite of the jobs it costs. The desire to maximize profits is what gets us there. Post scarcity could not occur without capitalism and greed.

>After that takes place and people all genuinely care about each other, then they can work towards some sort of utopia.

We will never get to the point where human nature is fundamentally changed. We can however get to a point where technology supplies such an abundance that theft no longer makes sense, and a society in which there are no real consequences when the new capitalist system built on top of the post scarcity substrate periodically fails.

>You don't build a utopia in this world, with our current human nature. Even if we had it now, it would only last a day.

You don't build Utopia, period. That doesn't mean we can't improve on the current system.

[Anonymous No.3827879]

>>3827810
>doctors
Not as hard as you'd think. Most of what doctor's do is just pattern recognition and it's HIGHLY susceptible to human error and inconsistency. Not the least of which is trying to remember all the hundreds if not thousands of different ailments some of which are extremely rare and any individual doctor likely has never seen.

>tour guides
Not familiar with augmented reality are we?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827905]

>>3827827

>How does any of that equate to robots that can completely build me a house with little or no human input? From mining the raw materials, to constructing it to deciding the best place it should be put.

We don't need robots that can do that in a total absence of infrastructure. We're not establishing this economy on Mars, we're establishing on Earth, in developed nations where automated factories are increasingly plentiful. The components for a house are already largely made by automated equipment. We do still need construction robots, but we don't need ones capable of doing everything from mining to manufacturing in a desert, in the absence of any supporting infrastructure, and it's bizarre to claim that such a scenario is even applicable.

>>3827822

>>Pollution everywhere.

There are methods of manufacturing that do not pollute as much or at all. The reasons they are not used right now have everything to do with the current capitalist system.

>No one has the incentive to.

I already addressed this. You don't need to reach 100% automation or anywhere near it to arrive at a point where traditional Capitalism is no longer viable.

>If there is a profit to be made then the job would be automated already.

Where the technology exists to do so, yes. And that is what's happening. Automation is on the rise, limited mainly by the capabilities of robots today. As those capabilities improve, robots will be able to perform more and more jobs.

>No I won't do what you tell me.

If you're a CEO, you'll do what your shareholders tell you, and they'll tell you to automate because they are primarily concerned with endlessly increasing profits.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827919]

I agree, but they don't have to finish it in order to catalyze the change we're discussing. We are already nearing catastrophic rates of unemployment. Automation is not slowing. It factually will reach a point where we cannot continue on the traditional capitalist system because there aren't enough jobs for even 50% of the people in the US.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3827935]

>>3827827

>How does any of that equate to robots that can completely build me a house with little or no human input? From mining the raw materials, to constructing it to deciding the best place it should be put.

We don't need robots that can do that in a total absence of infrastructure. We're not establishing this economy on Mars, we're establishing on Earth, in developed nations where automated factories are increasingly plentiful. The components for a house are already largely made by automated equipment. We do still need construction robots, but we don't need ones capable of doing everything from mining to manufacturing in a desert, in the absence of any supporting infrastructure, and it's bizarre to claim that such a scenario is even applicable.

>>3827822

>>Pollution everywhere.

There are methods of manufacturing that do not pollute as much or at all. The reasons they are not used right now have everything to do with the current capitalist system.

>No one has the incentive to.

I already addressed this. You don't need to reach 100% automation or anywhere near it to arrive at a point where traditional Capitalism is no longer viable.

>If there is a profit to be made then the job would be automated already.

Where the technology exists to do so, yes. And that is what's happening. Automation is on the rise, limited mainly by the capabilities of robots today. As those capabilities improve, robots will be able to perform more and more jobs.

>No I won't do what you tell me.

If you're a CEO, you'll do what your shareholders tell you, and they'll tell you to automate because they are primarily concerned with endlessly increasing profits.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3827962]

Hey guys. Mad Scientist wanted me to tell you guys that he is having connection problems. And he is having trouble posting. We are talking on AIM

[Anonymous No.3827977]

>>3827962
>implying we care

[Anonymous No.3827988]

How does Venus project differ (its practical effects) from social capitalism with basic income welfare and progressive taxation?

[Anonymous No.3827993]

I'm very interested in architecture and I think a some of his design are truly ingenious, especially the circular city. It's beautiful yet simple and efficient.
I'm however not so sure of the whole venus project thing and the ideology. To me it just seems very unrealistic.