Just trying to save the world

Aramax

New member
Sep 27, 2007
308
0
0
Seriously now. Of course a resource-based economy would never work unless every nations adopt it and I know that in this matter it will take a long time before this goal is finally achieved but if more then half of the people on earth would work under a resource-based economy there would be no more wars, no more poverty, no more people starving to death, no more 12 hours work days, no more stress and more sex.

A resource-based economy alone would guarantee no more economic crisis, no more fraud, no more annoying advertisements and less theft ( It would be really stupid to damage/steal something that you already have and can get repaired/exchanged indefinitely unless you're making some sort of collection ).

This should be enough of an incentive.

Virtue is its own reward.
 

MoganFreeman

New member
Jan 28, 2009
341
0
0
Aramax said:
MoganFreeman said:
If everyone receives every material good they could desire and won't have to work for it, what incentive remains for anyone to work?

EDIT: Also, there simply aren't enough resources for every person on earth to have TVs, iPods, stereos and whatever else OP claimed everyone could have for free.
Do you really need incentive to work? Do you really need incentive to give blood? Do you really need incentive to volunteer?

And there is enough ressources for everyone on the planet to live a happy life under a resource-based economy. You just say otherwise because you're pessimist.

If you want to keep bringing this argument then at least back it up with some evidence.
You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

But being as you are most likely a upper middle class college age white youth from America, you should know that the American Lifestyle is grossly decadent. If every person on Earth consumed the amount of food the typical American did, we would exceed the carrying capacity of the planet several times over.

But you know, you are probably right. The reason why everyone on this planet isn't shitting rainbows and pissing diamonds is because of aristocrats and pessimists.

How silly of me.
 

Zeke the Freak

New member
Jan 27, 2009
191
0
0
Aramax said:
Seriously now. Of course a resource-based economy would never work unless every nations adopt it and I know that in this matter it will take a long time before this goal is finally achieved but if more then half of the people on earth would work under a resource-based economy there would be no more wars, no more poverty, no more people starving to death, no more 12 hours work days, no more stress and more sex...
... and people wil start to fart fairy dust while unicorns cure global warming.
No country would want this because that would mean giving up any power that country has over the rest of the world.

"Our biggest threat is yadda-yadda-land, they have the most aggressive military and they're a world super power."
"what about the guys at blah-topia?"
"Those hippies? Nah, our 70 year old cancer induced war veterens could deal with them."
 

Logan Keller

New member
Jul 24, 2008
134
0
0
1) Are you saying we need to stop wars, climate change etc before we implement this system or will this system stop them?

2)How do you expect to get the products if people do not need to be required to make them?

3)How do you expect to make profits in a non-monetary system?
 

teisjm

New member
Mar 3, 2009
3,561
0
0
You fill in step 3 with something that works, and create the robots an dthen i'm all for it.
Otherwise i consider this useless
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,916
0
0
Aramax said:
Seriously now. Of course a resource-based economy would never work unless every nations adopt it and I know that in this matter it will take a long time before this goal is finally achieved but if more then half of the people on earth would work under a resource-based economy there would be no more wars, no more poverty, no more people starving to death, no more 12 hours work days, no more stress and more sex.

A resource-based economy alone would guarantee no more economic crisis, no more fraud, no more annoying advertisements and less theft ( It would be really stupid to damage/steal something that you already have and can get repaired/exchanged indefinitely unless you're making some sort of collection ).

This should be enough of an incentive.

Virtue is its own reward.
But it won't be. You really think people will work if they don't have to.

Also in a communist society you are forced to work, which is why they are somewhat functional. You never heard communists complain about it much due to propaganda (Soviet Union).
 

Zeke the Freak

New member
Jan 27, 2009
191
0
0
You know what the government needs.
Zombies. Just to weed out the weak ones. Plus, it'll be totally fucking awsome.
BAM! I have a new campaign slogan for when I run to become president of the US.
"Vote Zeke, his plans involve zombies."
Tell me you would not vote for that.
 

Lothae

New member
Mar 29, 2009
486
0
0
And who would work in the government if noone has to work?
Aramax said:
Antidamacus said:
Because I'm bored!

"The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource"

Hold on to that line for later.

"Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy.

So all we need is power that never runs out and is completely clean? Have we checked unicorn farts or fairy poo?

"At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants."

Well then, there shouldn't be anything like greed or crime....

"Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge."

You just said we haven't exceeded the carrying.... what? So are we over the limit with people or not?

"By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary."

What about murderers or sexual predators?

"A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people."

Well I'm sure you'll have a nice supply of workers willing to do this work to set up a utopia if you pay them a nice salary. I mean, the limitless supplies of energy and redesigns of the cities haven't happened yet.

"With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy."

I'm starting to see a theme showing up and it has nothing to do with total freedom from capitalism. I like my snacks and fats and sodas.

"As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated."

So... no law anymore? What about police? Are there police? Who will stop people from committing crimes when they get super bored from not having to work?

"With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat"

Because you can just quit and ask for a free house.

We would run out of resources faster if we just handed everyone everything and didn't require people to do a bit of work about it.
You criticize well. Now if only you could come up with a suitable solution for all of our problems I would be happy to actually care about what you say.
So what you're saying is that your idea IS worthless but since no-one else here can come up with a socioeconomic system that will solve all the worlds troubles their criticism doesn't count?
Grade A trolling here mate :/.
 

Dorian Cornelius Jasper

Space Robot From Outer Space
Apr 8, 2008
396
0
0
MoganFreeman said:
You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
This.

There's absolutely no proof that a government or other power in control of resources and that doles it out to citizens according to vaguely-defined needs (and vaguely-supplied needs) would be any different from any other body of power with an absolute monopoly on any resource or product that has already existed.

And the burden of proof does lie with the people making the claims.

Aramax said:
And to the OP: The reason why everybody keeps bringing up communism is because while the idea changes a few named concepts, the root idea is the same. An unchecked power block, governmental either de jure or de facto, effectively commands and controls all resources and allocation of resources. Theoretically "in order to allow people to live in comfort" but in theory never works. Not only human potential for corruption, but also simple human incompetence.

The idea that nobody would have to work is also laughable, seeing as how all those resources have to be managed and created by somebody. Labor robots for jobs and manufacturing will also need to be maintained by somebody. And if this utopian (the "eu-"topian spelling is a clear neologism created by People Who Don't Bother Thinking Things Through) society really does not force people to work, then it will have to entice people to work with more than just "the feeling of being productive" (which is actually another known communist propaganda phrase, and another reason why this idea is compared to communism so often). And if people are enticed to actually do work to keep these products and creations going, with real tangible benefits to being a worker as opposed to being a non-worker, then it won't be long before the workers start looking down on the non-workers and prop themselves up as the new aristocracy. And a "resource-based system" (though what actual resources and the use thereof has to do with this crackpot idea you've kept wonderfully vague) will need workers because if nobody works to create, say, video games, then no new video games will get made. And let's face it, making a video game is work.

If there were no real benefits to becoming a worker compared to a non-worker, then nobody would want to work. And nothing would get done, nobody would be able to sustain this "economy," and nobody would fix those "robots" you seem to think come from thin air. While you've been saying "Virtue is its own reward" to these problems, let's face it, it never is. (Also, communism has tried to get people to act on their better natures to make the system work. It failed every time.) Also, the vast majority of people tend not to give blood unless prodded. (Just sayin'.)

The only people who think that this is a good idea are those who don't bother thinking of ways it can and will go wrong. (There's ways capitalism, communism, mercantilism, and just about every -ism has gone wrong. But there will always be people who pretend that they don't or won't.)

Your claim that human nature does not exist is neither proven nor supported. The statements regarding human nature were created specifically by observing humans act in their best and worst of times, and often with all of the best conditions in place for them to do good or be content. Compared to the people of the medieval period, we live in Second Jerusalem. And yet human greed, corruption, arrogance, foolishness, and pettiness, have not changed.

You, yourself, show clear signs of the darker side of human nature. (I do, too, but I don't pretend to think that I'm not.)

Your idea of what people "need" (in your opening post) includes a number of luxuries that many people in the world survive without. The idea that we "need" any of these things is due to the effects of capitalism (marketing, specifically), ironically enough, affecting the way one thinks of as "necessities." This smacks of crass materialism, a simple mark of pure greed. You are Greedy.

Your idea that nobody needs work in order to survive, that entire systems of infrastructure and bureaucracy (in order to manage this "economy") could somehow exist with no effort is a clear sign of typical decadence endemic to those who exist in a privileged life with no clue as to the toil and suffering around the world that exists to prop up your decadent and self-serving life. And your only reason for supporting this idea is so that you can further prop up your decadent life with no effort on your part, and possibly pad it out with extra sex on top of that. You are Corrupt.

You show signs of clear hubris in presuming that your notions on how the world works, and how people really work are unequivocally and "obviously" correct and you look down on anyone who disagrees with you. You are so convinced in yourself that you refuse to take a good look at the potential cause-and-effect that your ideas would bring about. And any conclusions you approach you ignore out of hand because you believe you couldn't possibly be wrong. You are Arrogant. (And possibly narcissistic.)

You refuse to examine any potential issues with putting your ideals into practice. You refuse to think these ideas through. You never realized precisely why your ideas kept getting compared to communism, despite the fact that the parallels were obvious to everybody who pointed them out to you. And you also used Image Macros at face value--a key sign that you never caught on to the fact that most people over the age of 14 use them ironically. While a minor quibble, this is indicative of a greater lack of perceptive ability or carefulness of thought. You are Foolish.

Your only replies to your critics have been condescending at best, and insulting at worst. Your topic implies you think this thread brings greater moral worth to your own views and actions. And while I'd suspected you were a troll at first, and a good one, I've decided to post anyway because you seem intent on continuing this farce and I might as well hop on board. You look down on people, you dodge criticism, and your posts seem more intent on belittling those who deny you your opportunity to stroke your ego than to open up any logical discourse. You are Petty. (And if you're just trolling, then at least this one applies either way.)

You embody the worst parts of the decadent capitalist outlook, with none of the practical, useful parts. Your self-interest and self-aggrandizing clearly dominate your intent, and no amount of fuzzy feel-good words like "virtue" or "goodness" can hide that fact. There are two differences between you and Karl Marx. Marx had only the best of intentions and was not selfish in his ideals (he even stepped back from Marxism when it became clear that the world didn't need it in order to become a better place), and he also bothered to do his homework. He was a thinker, not a follower.

If you want to test your ideas so bad, go start up a settlement somewhere and have a go. That's what other people do. Granted, they need money in order to procure the materials and resources they need to start.

(As an aside: The Venus Project is pure utopian fluff from Mr. Fresco's thinky-box. It's an ideal, but not a means to reach it. And it reeks of the typical unsustainability all utopian-based-on-perspectives-and-misconceptions-gained-from-living-in-a-nonperfect-society ideas come packaged with. An ACTUAL, as in defined in the real world by real economists, resource-based economy is something like a country whose main exports rely on natural resources in THIS economic system. Many prosperous middle east countries, for example, are made wealthy by their natural resources. And they are among the least utopian societies in the world, especially socially. So sticking the label "resourced-based economy" onto a utopian ideal is the worst kind of public relations gaffe.)

Personally? I see a worldwide Venus Project quickly devolve into something akin to feudalism when people start taking advantage of it. And when the new aristocracy controls all luxury, technology, information, training, automation, and necessities, it'll be a new dark age of humanity. Because no power can exist without corruption, even if it starts out benign.

Heck, I'd probably try to get in on that new aristocracy business if it were ever to happen. It beats becoming the new serfdom.

(And your refusal to accept that your taken-from-some-guy idea is bunk because you insist someone ought to come up with something better misses the point entirely. People live in the real world and cope with the real world.)

...

TL;DR There is no such thing as a magic bullet, you greedy, corrupt, arrogant, foolish, petty little troll.
 

Zeke the Freak

New member
Jan 27, 2009
191
0
0
Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:
*snip*
TL;DR There is no such thing as a magic bullet, you greedy, corrupt, arrogant, foolish, petty little troll.
Ouch, man.
strike one up for DCJ, eh.
that was quite the epic post.
 

Fightgarr

Concept Artist
Dec 3, 2008
2,913
0
0
I think what's missing in your theory is 'People who don't want to work don't have to but they are then not entitled to any benefits'. I'm sorry but if you don't do anything ever you don't really deserve to have the government just pamper you. I feel like your heart is in the right place but your theory would result in a lazy and nonfunctional society.
 

Aramax

New member
Sep 27, 2007
308
0
0
Logan Keller said:
1) Are you saying we need to stop wars, climate change etc before we implement this system or will this system stop them?

2)How do you expect to get the products if people do not need to be required to make them?

3)How do you expect to make profits in a non-monetary system?
1) A resource-based economy is a step in the right direction, there's no denying it. If everyone work together to unite all the nations of this world under a resource-based economy ( Even if it takes several years before we succeed. ) hopefully it will stop all wars and fix climate change by giving us more freedom with our actions.

2) There will be a lot of people still willing to work even if there is no money under such system. I dont believe that human nature is inherent and I think that, if everyone is treated equally under a fair system, people are going to participate more. Of course, i'm speaking about a change of economical system here not a reset of society so dont get any idea about returning to the stone age or anything of the sort. We are in the modern era and we can use the tools that we created to help us achieve our goal, we wont be creating everything from scratch.

3) I dont expect to make profits. There is no need for such a trivial concept in a resource-based economy.

Internet Kraken said:
You never heard communists complain about it much due to propaganda (Soviet Union).
And i'm supposed to be the conspiracy theorist...

Lothae said:
So what you're saying is that your idea IS worthless but since no-one else here can come up with a socioeconomic system that will solve all the worlds troubles their criticism doesn't count?
Grade A trolling here mate :/.
Exactly. As a matter of fact, a resource-based economy is just slightly less worthless then every other economical system out there. It still make some major differences and has more chance of saving us all from all the threats I mentioned in this topic.
 

dwightsteel

New member
Feb 7, 2007
962
0
0
Aramax said:
dwightsteel said:
heh, wow. Ok, first, have you never heard the expression "you attract more bees with honey, then with vinegar?" You are the one trying to convince us that you're right, and by acting overtly elitist about the idea, you're really doing your "movement" a disservice.

That being said, based on your principal statement, it didn't occur to me that you were attempting to spout out the Venus Project propaganda. Your initial description is more than a little misleading.

I'm glad that you've watched Zeitgeist though. It's a fun flick.
I dont think someone acting any other way then with complete confidence ( Elitism if you will ) toward his idea would even have a remote chance of convincing others to even start a discussion about the idea itself. I dont really understand where such analogy ( honey and vinegar ) took form in this discussion but I think you deserve all the facts.

The fact is that I know about the greatest flaw of a resource based economy and this flaw is called entertainment. It's true that without incentive there would be a drastic decrease in motivation from artists and this could eventualy lead to a very boring life. But on the other hand, it would give you time to admire most of the artistic creations ( Paintings, music, film, games, etc... ) that were already created that you missed while waiting for something new.

I know it doesn't sound exiting at all.

dwightsteel said:
It's essentially a futurist's take on communism, as much as the original poster chooses to deny it.
It's more like a futuristic take on capitalism if you think about it.
Where were you when I was trying to goad you into a debate last night? As it is, I've kind of lost my interest in this, suffice to say, the only difference between what the Venus Project wants and communism is money and technology. The reason capitalism works is because it's a system anyone with some market savvy and internet connection can reasonably exploit. Systems where "everyone benefits" means that a door is wide open for someone to take control of it. Look at the philosophy behind most major governmental and economic systems and you'll see similarities.

Now I wipe my hands of this subject. Damn you for not debating me last night.

P.S. the honey/vinegar thing is pertinent because I'm assuming that at the end of the day, you actually would like people to agree with you, and your responses have been more than a little abrasive. The reason I think you're elitist is because your responses seem to lead people to infer that you think you're better then everyone else.
 

Aramax

New member
Sep 27, 2007
308
0
0
Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:
There is no such thing as a magic bullet, you greedy, corrupt, arrogant, foolish, petty little troll.

I dont know where you get the idea that I want to start "an unchecked power block, governmental either de jure or de facto, effectively commands and controls all resources and allocation of resources" because i'm all about democracy and I even stated that I want the people to actually vote for a political party who would support a resource based economy.

Also, flame on rainbow man.
 

Dorian Cornelius Jasper

Space Robot From Outer Space
Apr 8, 2008
396
0
0
Aramax said:
I dont know where you get the idea that I want to start "an unchecked power block, governmental either de jure or de facto, effectively commands and controls all resources and allocation of resources" because i'm all about democracy and I even stated that I want the people to actually vote for a political party who would support a resource based economy.
Herein lies the lack of forethought: Exactly what would be the form of infrastructure that maintains this misnamed "resource based economy?" Even if people voted for it, the votes are meaningless unless a system is put in place that actually manages these "resources" and luxuries--without a means of distribution literally nothing will occur. And that's why it's clear that the idea is just renamed communism--just one you want people to vote for in a democratic manner before all semblance of democracy is tossed out the window.

There would be no way to ensure that this sort of idealistic resource distribution could exist without something that controls access to these resources--either giving them out or preventing people from claiming them and requiring payment or barter for their claims.

This would be a government. Either in name or in practice. And it would monopolize the resources it controls.

dwightsteel said:
The reason I think you're elitist is because your responses seem to lead people to infer that you think you're better then everyone else.
Which is why I stand by my remarks as to his real motives relating to ego and pettiness. (I might take it back if discussion takes a turn for the different, though.)
 

Aramax

New member
Sep 27, 2007
308
0
0
dwightsteel said:
Your responses have been more than a little abrasive. The reason I think you're elitist is because your responses seem to lead people to infer that you think you're better then everyone else.
I think everyone would have abrasive responses if all they get from starting a debate of relative importance is just nagging and trolling everywhere they go. Try to respond to my topic without any pessimism and keep to the fact while posting in a eloquent manner and I should respond like my normal self.
 

Neonbob

The Noble Nuker
Dec 22, 2008
25,564
0
0
It seems to me that you're relying on people being willing to get along with each other. Warning! Warning! Hopeless dreaming ahead!