/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2438033

It's just based off of reality. There aren't any views or opinions to be made. Do you have any experience in the scientific field?

You ask a question, such as "do we have enough water" Then you run an experiment to find out whether or not we do. If we don't, you choose to divert water from a nearby dam.

There's no such thing as "welll...I THINK we should get more water just because". That would be ridiculous. It's based off of evidence and experiment.

That's all I'm saying. Glad we could clear this up.

>>2438013

The reason regulation occurs is due to market failures inherent to the system. Any econ 101 student knows this. Therefore, it's impossible to have a completely free market. That would mean massive poverty, as capitalism is literally a mechanism which allows the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer.

Every time our nation has tried to deregulate a bit of the market, we get shit like the housing market crisis. Bankers literally profit off of food stamps and the economy grows for every sick person there is.

By the way guys, I can sense intense hostility and anger. I'm not your enemy, and I don't see you as mine. This is about the exchange of ideas.

It takes a truly open-minded person to be able to consider ideas without either attacking them / immediately accepting them as fact. If you find yourself mad right now you should really take time to consider y u so mad.

>>2437973

The computer wouldn't judge anything. Why would someone try to break it? Think from their perspective: they'd be destroying a computer which looks after their well-being.

You could make the argument that some random evil son of a bitch would want to kill everyone, and sure, I guess there's a chance that could happen..but how is that ANY different from today's society? You or I could take out thousands of people if we wanted to (you can make fucking dynamite from watching some youtube videos).

The key question here is incentive

>>2437956

You're projecting arguments into the equation.

When did I ever say that Capitalism was inferior to Communism? Never. Capitalism is a great mechanism in a society with scarce resources. The only difference now is that technological growth now and over the next few decades will render capitalism out-dated.

It's already happening now: more and more jobs are being outsourced to technology each day. Even professional economists today are at a loss for where new jobs will come from. The only sector of the job market which has experienced any growth is the service sector, and as we all know (due to automated service agents and such) that job market will also dry up in time.

Furthermore, we are currently developing the technology to print items...with printers. That is to say, if you have the raw materials (which are in abundance in this planet) You can literally print any material object your little heart desires.

Even objects such as flutes, which require extreme precision. I'm an MIT student, and while I'm not an engineering major, I actually saw them in the process of printing a flute and a metal whistle a couple months ago. Shit is obviously new technology, but it's getting crazy.

Scarcity is gone. Scientists are also saying that between geothermal energy, solar energy, wind, wave energy, etc we have an abundance of energy.

If everything is in abundance, economics becomes irrelevant.

My fellow /sci/entists, please think of it this way.

It's a society based on the scientific method. Right now we have a society where corruption is literally praised. In a society where corruption is NOT praised, how could corruption be any greater?

The scientists' only job is to arrive at decisions based on the information available to them in a way which reflects reality, and in a way designed to maintain the sustainability of society. That's it. I don't know what else you think they're going to do.

As of now, we live in a system where we are governed by morons. Our society is not sustainable. The global free market will collapse. This is merely a fact. Isn't just Peter Joseph who has been saying this. Many economists and different groups are starting to say the same thing.

>>2437942

Not all humans; you're generalizing.

>>2437937

Now your argument is grounded in semantics. Computers will help us make decisions related to how many resources we have and the best way to process those resources.

Nature is a dictatorship, as PJ aptly puts. That is to say, we aren't in charge of how many resources are available to us. All we can do is live a lifestyle which is sustainable for our survival. That's it.

It's not like the computer has some sort of desire to throw everyone into oppression, nor that it can. It's simply the messenger.

Do you know what I mean by that?

>>2437898

Call them whatever you want; leave the semantics to the politicians. The point is that they will help operate society in accordance to reality. They are scientists; not politicians. Their incentive is to maintain society, and all the resources are available to everyone. Given this circumstance, there is no reason to abuse power. Also, how COULD anyone abuse their power under that system? Explain that to me, if you can

>>2437895

I'm not saying this system will surely work, I'm just saying its a viable alternative to our current society (given that we already live in a dictatorship).

Think about it. Did you vote for the Iraq war? Did you vote for ObamaCare? Did you vote for the tax cuts? Did you vote for any bills related to alternative energy usage? Did you vote for the highway structure? The resources given to scientists?

Do you decide anything? Did you even decide your president? Bullshit. You didn't even know who Obama was until 2008. He won because the idiotic masses liked his speeches and thought he was a nice guy. Had nothing to do with his leadership skills. Had nothing to do with his intelligence. Had nothing to do with his knowledge of anything relevant. Primarily, it had to do with rhetoric and the fact that Goldman Sachs were the greatest funders to his campaign.

>>2437881

I'm not saying that all objections are stupid. There are actually many relevant arguments to make, such as those concerning the transition, those concerning the state of technology, and those concerning how a sustainable equilibrium is reached.

However, in this thread, the only counter argument I've heard is "hurrdurr communism" with absolutely no supporting argument.

You'll have to excuse me if this leads me to believe the people in this thread aren't the most educated when it comes to the movement.

>>2437863

Also, this society has no ruling parties (no parties at all). No one has authority over any one else. The sustainability of society is merely operated by teams of scientists who reach decisions in relation to what's available on the Earth.

>>2437863

I was referring to people who rejected the movement before looking into it. Learn 2 reading comprehension.

>>2437841

Care to explain why? Your response gives me no actual information.

>>2437839

There's no evidence to believe any God exists.

>>2437834

The Zeitgeist Movement has no intention of trying to implement its approach under the current global economy. It merely presents a possible for solution following the collapse of the global monetary economy. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be telling me anything about the movement.

>>2437806

Your sense of humor needs some work. It's okay though; we can't all be George Carlins.

>>2437793

Because they have third rate minds.

>>2437782

It's not communism; all communistic societies in the past have used money as was necessary, because technology wasn't at the level needed to eliminate scarcity.

>>2437752

Because I'm a human being.

>>2437707

I said ask me something

I support The Zeitgeist Movement. Ask me anything.

>>2433360

Yeah, yeah I know. You're right. Keep watching FOX news and watching football games. I'll be here studying particle physics, trying to stop billions of people from needless suffering and death, and continue working on progress. You're absolutely right. Even though you've never read into the zeitgeist movement, you've never studied human behavior, or technology, or economics, you know everything. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. The people in charge of government are here to help you. Materialism is good. So is vanity and mindless consumption. Go about your day.

Have a good day; I'm done talking to you slugs.

Peace out guys.

>>2433355

Sure. and businesses do nothing other than spread the products around. With the rate of technology, capitalism is simply outdated.

Scarcity is no longer an issue. Period.