The Needles: Don't Blame Canada

[ReverseEngineered]

Well said CCIA and Andy Chalk, I couldn't have said any of it better myself.

It irritates me to no end that US policy makers insist Canada is the problem and that we change our laws to suit their whims. Surprise: this is our country, not yours, and we make our own laws. Why not argue with the EU, China, Japan, Germany, the UK, and every other major country about the laws you differ on. Copyright is a small part of the overall legal system and each country's set of laws varies considerably. Don't bother telling us we need to change our laws to fit yours unless you're willing to do the same for us.

Among other things, Canadian companies are quite satisfied with the protections they already have. We aren't looking to cutoff internet access to infringers, mandate DRM in everything, or give lengthy prisons sentences for inconsequential offenses. Canadian developers and artists are actually arguing for less protections, not more, and they are scared as hell of ACTA and all the rest of the backroom policy making. It's only a small number of lobbyists with connections and deep pockets who want any of this copyright reform nonsense.

The US government and companies should worry about their own problems and leave us to ours. Bullying us to change our minds with watch lists and threats of trade sanctions isn't going to win you any sympathy. We're your friends, not your enemies, and don't ever forget that, or you may find you have no friends left.

 

[Falseprophet]

American here: I am disappointed in my country's copyright laws, to be frank. A lot of them make little sense, and so many are obviously the result of intense lobbying. It's really annoying when business interests matter more to your country than individuals' rights. I'm sure that this happens to an extent in other countries also, but it still ticks me off.

Same here. And the sad part is that most Americans just don't give a damn about this, yet the whole of the U.S. will still be yelled at for it...

Thanks guys. And you should be worried, since near as I can tell, the purpose of current US copyright legislation is to give private corporations police powers. And the Hollywood Writers Strike and this recent scandal in Canada [http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement] demonstrate the "we care about the artist" line is total crap.

I'm sorry, but the only interesting thing I got out of this is that there is a stereotype the Canadians hate Toronto?

Wtf? I mean, sure the Leafs suck and all, but why Toronto? I'd figure that someplace in Quebec would get the hate...

It's a Western Canadian thing and it's because Toronto tends to have a "Center of the Universe" attitude. For example you mention the Leafs, as a Canadian I can tune into a national broadcast of Hockey Night in Canada, and the whole thing is all about the Leafs.

No, it's a whole country thing--even those of us who live an hour's drive from Toronto hate it. Another big reason is because Toronto's home to Bay Street--basically just like NYC's Wall Street, where all the big banks, corporations, and the Toronto Stock Exchange (which is seen as the economic barometer of the country) reside. Also, Toronto has horrible public transit and horrible urban planning.

 

[JamesCG]

Pa-lez, if I took someone that doesn't know anything about borders/sovereignty, they wouldn't be able to tell apart an American city from a Canadian city at all. Our "cultures" are exactly the same. (I'm a Canadian that visits the states regularly btw)

Prince Edward Island.



I don't think it's the same in the states as it is over here on PEI.

 

[Playbahnosh]

The idea of getting paid for art isn't a new idea. Hell, the Sistine Chapel was painted on contract, and it's considered one of history's greatest works. So was Michelangelo's David. Upon finishing the Mona Lisa, Leonardo Da Vinci sold it to the king of france for 4000 ecus.

Art HAS monetary value. Sometimes art is created to pay the bills, other times art is created out of love and sold. That doesn't undermine it's quality as art. The value of art goes beyond the materials used to craft it. There's an investment of creativity, time, money, resources and work involved in crafting a piece of art. The only way to support the continued production of art is to compensate the creators for their creations. There is nothing unreasonable about creating art with the hope that someone will enjoy it enough to wish to compensate you for making it.

I think there are all kinds of problems with the arts these days, from profiteering and price gouging by music labels, to expectation of compensation in the millions by artists, to insufficient arts funding by governments, to unreasonable and over-reaching copright laws designed to protect corporate interest over the production of creative works (and the extension of that reach accross borders, as per this article). What ISN'T a problem is the simple expectation of an artist to be able to earn a livable wage while pursuing their craft.

-m

I agree for the most part. I'm very well aware, that art had monetary value since money was invented a few thousand years ago, but history alone doesn't mean that trend is right in any way. Some time ago people thought that the Earth is flat and bloodletting is cure for any number of illnesses. But all that changed, why can't our views of art, for example? For a society to advance, we need to examine our past beliefs from time to time, and revise them in light of new information, scientific and cultural progress, update them, if you will. As you know, that is called progress.

Let my clarify something: I'm not against artists getting support and appreciation for their work, they are as human as anyone, they need to eat and live somewhere. I just want artists to be supported as artists, not for the individual pieces of art they create. That degrades those pieces to simple commodity, means to an end, and there are so many things wrong with that. That trend also degrades the artists to lowly art manufacturing machines, because they need to continuously pump out newer and pretties creative works in order to merely survive. In other terms, it's a trap. Supporting artists for their artistry and not their individual works can alleviate them from this burden, where they no longer need to fear for their livelihood and they won't have the inescapable obligation to crank out whatever form of art they are doing, simply because need to pay the rent. In the same time, art should be made free for everyone on this planet. With the internet, we have the ability to distribute all kinds of creative works to almost every place on the globe for virtually no cost. As many pirates will tell you, making a digital copy of something does not degrade the original in any way, so in that regard, there is really no reason why can't everyone enjoy art for free. When the artists are given a stable livelihood and everything they need to pursue their craft, no one should feel offended or robbed, when their works are copied and the people distribute is amongst themselves, because they love it. There will be a time, where are will be free and open to everyone, where, for example, important paintings won't be locked away at some rich collector's study so only he could look at it. Where art won't have monetary value, only cultural.

But for that to happen, we need to deal with the underlying problem, that is the basis of everything we know today: the monetary system. Since the dark ages, religion slowly took a back seat in people's lives, and today industries are where the churches were in terms of power and influence, even overshadowing governments now. The arms industry, The oil and food industry, the movie industry, the games industry, they are like medieval churches, vying for power and control. Copyright laws strangling creative people, they milk artists for their creative juice to pour them into gold bars, and keep it all for themselves, while only giving the artists a meager living, no they won't let their golden geese die just yet. It's modern slavery, that's what it is. In the old form of slavery, slave keepers were forced to feed and house their slaves, but today, slaves need to feed and house themselves. It's gotten worse.

There is chance, that we can turn that around, and starting with fighting copyright on the internet is most viable option now.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

I'm in support of the pirate parties in around the world. They are legitimate political parties lobbying for a copyright reform. The laws are too strict, not too lax, and they should be changed. I'll believe the government is sensible and the country is free when it's legal to download music without money being involved, when data is a right.

I'm no fan of overly strict and nonsensical copyright laws, but how dare people want to make money off of the stuff that they work hard on creating?! What an outrage!

I swear, the internet has just created a population of leeches.

That's not what it's about for me, it's all philosophy at it's base.

 

[Formica Archonis]

Well, guys, we're in good company. Lobbyists want to slap several other countries [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/opensource-intellectual-property] on the Special 301 list for the vile sin of... GASP... using open source software!

 

[L9OBL]

we dont have our own but we canucks go under the international fair use act!(so technically everyone does) and i would call tpp legal here and illegal there less restrictive but what evs what evs (that and our law enforcement doesn't really care, almost every canadian uses sharing like limewire. lol)

Let's clear some things up here, regarding Fair use, because I suspect you are referencing an element of copyright law you aren't actually versed in. (portions taken from wikipedia)

Fair Use: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term "fair use" originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions.

The Fair use balancing test requires that use of copyrighted material conform to 4 criteria:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; - The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work; - the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional, whether it was previously published or unpublished, etc.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; - The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. However, small portions can violate fair use if they compromise the original work, and whole works can be copied under fair use if they do not substantially harm the original.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work - The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original.


Fair Dealing: (Canadian Eqivalent):

The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair. It is important to note that unlike fair use in the United States, which recognizes that parody can be fair, fair dealing in Canada has not definitely been found to contain exceptions for parody. A Quebec Court of Appeal in Les productions Avanti Cine Video v. Favreau (4 Aug 1999) recognized that parody could potentially be a 'critique', however it refused to recognize the exception in that circumstances as the defendants had tried to 'capitalize on' the popularity of the original work.

The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada has gone far in clarifying the concept of fair dealing in Canada. In considering fair dealing the Court makes the following general observation:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

Furthermore, by taking "a liberal approach to the enumerated purposes of the dealing", the Court has made fair dealing more flexible, reducing the gap between this provision and US fair use

It then establishes six principal criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights." In particular, the Court gave a "a large and liberal interpretation" to the notion of research, stating that "lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research".
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Was the dealing "reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose"?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair."

Though the Supreme Court outlined these six criteria, it noted that in some contexts, factors other than those listed may be relevant in determining whether a particular dealing is fair.


Under the above noted descriptions, Canadian Fair Dealing is significantly more restrictive than American fair use, particularly since Parody and Satire are covered under "commentary" in fair use, but are not expressly covered by Fair Dealing.

All that notwithstanding, neither element of copyright law says anything about file sharing or hardware.

-m

yah I know all this boring ass legal shit i had to pretty much memorize it so we could produce the machinima i make and do related merchandising with out getting our asses kicked in lawsuits and shit (though its been a year or two since so my memory lapses a bit i will admit that a might of forgotten a bit) secondly i NEVER use wikipedia as it is nothing but LIES well inacurate i guess (thats being kind) and go directly to the source thirdly i never said anything about file sharing in copyright (well might of been easily interpreted) i was just stating that it is legal up here so getting certain software and files(not hardware as that is stealing and illeagal up here) is allowed via tpp like cracks and such solong as it follows a certain criteria so canadian businesses and enternainers get a "backdoor" as long as they follow that criteria so by laxed i ment we have more loopholes/shortcuts i guess but our laws are wat more restrictive and confusing but can save us moneyz or arnt worth the hassles(trust me i know i do airsofting and the laws for that are a ***** to understand. yah you can do certain things and get hard to get stuff but are too hard to obtain, cause (some) devices you find laying around in the streets in the states are legal here but its not worth the hassle or money[im giving an example not being off topic])

 

[ChroniclerC]

Forgive me for being off topic but...

...CCIA promotes open markets, open systems, open networks, and full, fair, and open competition." CCIA members include Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Yahoo!, Intuit, Nvidia and many others.

Anyone else find the inclusion of a certain company laughable, given the Association's goals? Not to make fun of the group, but really?

 

[Rangergord]

We in Canada are too busy letting:

Air Canada and Bombardier have their way,
wondering just how far dual language statis can be pushed,
trying to figure out how to privatize out fameous social medial system without the majority of public noticing too much,
getting boned by the big energy sector,
enforcing the near monopalization of the communications industry,
and letting American companies pretend to be Canadian (and us believing them)

to notice some the fine details of some copyright laws. We're great with creating neadlessly complicated controls in the general media though, ie our favourite pals the CRTC.

Frankly If buisness has its way, copyright laws will supress all rights to ownership and the notion of buying something well fade away, it'll just take a little longer north of the border.

 

[commasplice]

I, for one, appreciate your contribution to the internet and the fact that you publish your stuff for free. I'm not really sure that Playbahnosh understands that just because you make something for the enjoyment of others doesn't mean that you don't deserve to get paid for it.

You are right, I really don't understand it, not anymore. I did, but after all these years, and a lot of thinking, it really makes no sense. I agree, artists should be supported and celebrated, because without them, our days would be gray, dull and mostly without purpose. Without artists there would be no culture or even society as we know it today. Yet somehow today's society sees artists and creative works, art, as a simple commodity, that can be purchased and sold. That's wrong, so very wrong.

Whether the makers do it out of love for what they do or for the enjoyment of others is largely irrelevant. They still deserve to be compensated.

Is that so? Deserve? This is, again, that notion of entitlement, to get paid for something someone does for free and for the enjoyment of others. Irrelevant? Is it? If wasn't for that love for what they do and the sense of accomplishment, all those artists wouldn't be here where they are today. If, say, Matt here didn't do what he did for the sole purpose of entertaining others, and for free, he wouldn't be publishing on the Escapist now. And as he said, he didn't get here because he was entitled to get hired by the Escapist, he himself noted, that it was sheer, pure luck.

Okay, I'm not really good with the English language still, and maybe you misunderstood me. I have no problems with Matt, you, or anyone else here. Quite the contrary, I really respect Matt as an artist and what he accomplished and does so today. The fact that you immediatly leap to defend him shows, that he has some very loyal fans, and it's a good thing. I don't have a problem with people, no. I have a problem with society and where it's going. Where art and to produce stuff for the sole purpose of entertaining other people became a job, and suddenly everyone who ever created anything or came up with new ideas feels entitled to get paid for it. Where art is a good to be traded, and not something to be displayed for the enjoyment of all. The value of a piece of art is really the value on it's pricetag? It should be measured on an entirely different scale, or better yet, not measured at all, since all art is important, and we couldn't live without it. Copyright laws try to enforce the latter, that a unique creation is only worth what it costs, and that no art should be shared without the exchange of money. That's wrong, IMHO.

I'm going to be completely frank here. You may not have a problem with Matt or me or anyone else, but I, at least, have a problem with you. I think you're an intelligent person and I respect your right to express your opinion (in fact, I encourage you to. It makes for a good discussion, if nothing else), but you make it sound like just because someone wants to be compensated for their work, that they're some kind of greedy asshole or, barring that, that society views art as just another method of monetary gain and, as someone who would like to make a living off of his art, both notions offend me. (I was hoping not to pull the "hurr durr, I'm an artist, too" card, but oh well.)

I think your view of this whole "paying for art" and "entitlement" business is oversimplified. It would be nice if we lived in a world where I could spend every day painting whatever I felt like and not have to worry about anything else, but that's just not how things work. At the very least, any given artist has to worry about feeding him/herself and paying the bills. On top of that, there's the cost of art supplies for each individual piece, which may or may not be negligible depending on the medium the artist is working with. I, for one, like to draw and paint on paper with actual paints and all that. Even if we ignore my living expenses, I still have to pay for pencils and paint. That money has to come from somewhere, so my only options if I want to keep painting are to try and sell my art or get a job doing something I'll hate while only being able to do what I love when I get a free moment.

Aside from all of that, there's still the issue of "entitlement". Whether or not someone is entitled to payment is dependent upon the piece itself. If I paint a picture of my own volition--no matter how good it is--I don't believe that I'm entitled to be handed money arbitrarily. I am, however, entitled to do whatever I feel like with it, which includes putting it up for auction. I made it. It's mine. I'm entitled to use it however I like. On the other hand, you have commissions, like in the example I gave with my mother earlier. If someone asks me to paint them a picture of a character they came up with for a story they're writing, you're damn right I'm going to charge them (unless they're a friend of mine or something). Why? Not because I think my art is "just that good" or anything, but because I'm providing a service. I could be doing something else with my time and materials--like painting something I came up with, for one--so yes, I feel that I am entitled to be paid for it, just like one would be paid for any other service.

Even in a socialist society, you're compensated for your work. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," right? You contribute what you can to society and (ideally) your needs are accounted for, in turn. I agree that all art is important and has value, but I don't recall it ever being a law that just because a piece can sell for a couple million bucks, it's more important than any piece that would sell for less or not at all. In addition, the point of copyright law isn't to assert the individual value of each piece of art, but to ensure that the rights of the creators are protected. Don't you think that it would be even a little bit fucked up if, say, someone decided to burn Matt's entire library of works to DVD and then hawk them on a street corner without his consent? Would it really be okay for one person to make a living off of another's hard work without even cutting them in on the action? In my opinion, that is wrong and devalues the art even more than a price tag alone ever could.

Let my clarify something: I'm not against artists getting support and appreciation for their work, they are as human as anyone, they need to eat and live somewhere. I just want artists to be supported as artists, not for the individual pieces of art they create. That degrades those pieces to simple commodity, means to an end, and there are so many things wrong with that. That trend also degrades the artists to lowly art manufacturing machines, because they need to continuously pump out newer and pretties creative works in order to merely survive. In other terms, it's a trap. Supporting artists for their artistry and not their individual works can alleviate them from this burden, where they no longer need to fear for their livelihood and they won't have the inescapable obligation to crank out whatever form of art they are doing, simply because need to pay the rent. In the same time, art should be made free for everyone on this planet. With the internet, we have the ability to distribute all kinds of creative works to almost every place on the globe for virtually no cost. As many pirates will tell you, making a digital copy of something does not degrade the original in any way, so in that regard, there is really no reason why can't everyone enjoy art for free. When the artists are given a stable livelihood and everything they need to pursue their craft, no one should feel offended or robbed, when their works are copied and the people distribute is amongst themselves, because they love it. There will be a time, where are will be free and open to everyone, where, for example, important paintings won't be locked away at some rich collector's study so only he could look at it. Where art won't have monetary value, only cultural.

But for that to happen, we need to deal with the underlying problem, that is the basis of everything we know today: the monetary system. Since the dark ages, religion slowly took a back seat in people's lives, and today industries are where the churches were in terms of power and influence, even overshadowing governments now. The arms industry, The oil and food industry, the movie industry, the games industry, they are like medieval churches, vying for power and control. Copyright laws strangling creative people, they milk artists for their creative juice to pour them into gold bars, and keep it all for themselves, while only giving the artists a meager living, no they won't let their golden geese die just yet. It's modern slavery, that's what it is. In the old form of slavery, slave keepers were forced to feed and house their slaves, but today, slaves need to feed and house themselves. It's gotten worse.

There is chance, that we can turn that around, and starting with fighting copyright on the internet is most viable option now.

So...basically, you want industry to die and you want artists to have no incentive to better their own skills? Tell me, how are the artists--or anyone, for that matter--in your theoretical world going to be any less slaves to the system when the whole of their sustenance depends on coming directly from those who control the system? What reason would we have to develop new pharmaceuticals if we get paid irrespective of the outcome for our research? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that things are perfect the way that they are, but eliminating industry as a whole would be a large step backwards.

As for copyright law, I don't care what pirates say. If I sell bootleg copies of a movie, I may not be affecting the source material directly, but I'm still diverting income from the makers of the movie. It may not be stealing in that I didn't steal a physical copy of the movie from anyone, but I'm certainly accepting money for something that isn't mine.

Anyway, back to the original point. Canada is obviously not a "piracy haven" like China or the Philippines, and studies have demonstrated that Canada's rate of piracy is actually among the lowest in the world. So what's the deal? The only explanation is that the list, in this case at least, is being used not to combat IP crime, but as a foreign policy tool to effect legislative changes in other, sovereign nations. And that is hugely inappropriate. The "fuckin' Americans" reaction expressed in some posts in this thread is the wrong approach to take, but I don't think that better-considered anger is inappropriate at all.

It's worth it to note that, like others have said, most Americans don't really care how you guys run your country, much less know anything about it. The way I see it, you guys have survived just fine on your own without us trying to butt in and mother you. We've honestly got bigger problems to worry about right now, so I don't really see any reason for Team America: World Police to become a reality.

 

[Playbahnosh]

I'm going to be completely frank here. You may not have a problem with Matt or me or anyone else, but I, at least, have a problem with you. I think you're an intelligent person and I respect your right to express your opinion (in fact, I encourage you to. It makes for a good discussion, if nothing else)

Thank you, I guess...Although I'm not certain if you meant that as a genuine remark or some seething sarcasm, especially the one in brackets...

...society views art as just another method of monetary gain...

Yes, yes it does. You captured the essence of what I wanted to say. But don't rush to conclusions just yet, let me explain. It's a vital detail, that you used "society" in there, instead of "people". Society, as a construct based on certain value systems, as it is now, does see art as a method of monetary gain, since society as we know it, is firmly rooted in, and based entirely on the monetary system. Just look at any industry, the movie or music industry, the games industry, or any other that concern themselves of literally selling art. Do you think, that these industries are concerned with the artistic or cultural value of their "goods"? Of course not, industries are, by nature (born from the ideology of capitalism and free market), only concerned about turning a profit, that's their sole reason of existence. Maybe some people inside the industry do care, but that construct around them, the industry itself, is a soulless machine with no morals, and with only one goal: get as much profit as possible. It's not a matter of single people, it's a matter of values, ideals and artificial systems like industries and companies. It's inevitable, and you can't fault the "industry" for behaving like it is, it's a system, a construct born out of a certain necessity, a necessity to group together and serve the interest of the companies inside them, much like companies themselves, which are serving the single purpose of turning a profit for the people inside them.

Just as you can't blame single cells in murderer's body for the act of killing another person, you can't blame the individual people inside the shambling monstrosity we know as industries for behaving as soulless, borderline evil sociopaths, hell bent on turning profit at any cost.

I think your view of this whole "paying for art" and "entitlement" business is oversimplified. It would be nice if we lived in a world where I could spend every day painting whatever I felt like and not have to worry about anything else, but that's just not how things work.

Not right now, you are right about that. The whole point of this conversation, at least for me, is to discuss what's wrong with the system today and theorize about the way of how it could be or should be, some time in the future. The system works as it is now, I did not argue against the reality of the situation at all. I'm very well aware how things work, being an artist myself, as you are, who needs to pay the bills, eat, sleep and pay for the supplies to pursue the chosen form of art. And it's so fucking hard sometimes, that I even wonder if it's worth it. See, I mostly do art for fun and as voluntary work, and I do have real world jobs to pay for the bills and such. Some times, it really gets to me. When I arrive home after a particularly hard day at work, I turn on my computer and look at the unfinished novels and articles sitting on my desktop, and I realize I'm too tired to write anything, and instead I crash into my bed, so I can get up in the morning and go to work again, that really destroys the spirit. When you have to work multiple jobs to somehow sustain a meager living, you won't have any time to pursue any form art or even fun, you really start to wonder, "what's the point?". When you work all day, just to get enough money to be able to continue working all day: it's a fucking trap. It's slavery. And most of the planet lives in this nightmare, day by day, including me. As I said earlier, centuries ago slavery required owners to feed and house their slaves in order for them to be able to work all day, but in modern slavery (in the monetary system), slaves are required to feed and house themselves. It's even worse. Either you step into the hamster-wheel, or you die. The system gives no alternative.

And somehow most people are content with that. Hell, there are even people how would leap to defend their own slave existence because they are "trained" to do so. We are brainwashed by the media, flooded with entertainment and propaganda to keep us content, keep us from thinking. And some of us are happily stepping into the hamster-wheel every day, because they think it's serves some higher cause, that it makes their lives better somehow, if they just keep working harder and harder, it will all change for the better. But in reality, it won't. The system, the society we live in now is dishonest, it doesn't treat people equally and it very far from being "free". When 99% or the world's resources are controlled by 1% of the population, the wealthy elite, you can't have equality. This is system we live in now, is as ass-backwards as it could be. The poorest people on the planet work the hardest to sustain a meager existence of suffering and the people with the most money do virtually nothing but raking in ungodly amount of even more money with zero work on their part. Don't tell me that's not fucking absurd.

So...basically, you want industry to die and you want artists to have no incentive to better their own skills? Tell me, how are the artists--or anyone, for that matter--in your theoretical world going to be any less slaves to the system when the whole of their sustenance depends on coming directly from those who control the system? What reason would we have to develop new pharmaceuticals if we get paid irrespective of the outcome for our research? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that things are perfect the way that they are, but eliminating industry as a whole would be a large step backwards.

Don't get me wrong, but I think you are not thinking on a grand enough scale for this matter. Why do we need anyone to "control the system"? What if we have a system that is not controlled by anyone? No, before you start ripping, I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about a system, that has no need for government or control, because the people in it are educated enough to know what's good for them and what's not. Where everyone works for one common goal: the betterment and advancement of all humanity. Now, I know you think I'm an utopist lunatic for saying these things, but bear with me for a moment. A global system, that treats every person as equal, no leaders, no elite, no classes, just people. Also, there is no money, because it's irrelevant. Money was invented many millennia ago to act as a measure of debt in a less enlightened and technologically inferior world, where resources were scarce or unobtainable. That system is irrelevant, because, even now, today, we have the technology and the resources to house and feed every single human being on the planet. Right now, people in advanced western countries are living in abundance where people in Africa and Asia are dying of malnutrition or starvation. While the pompous elite are munching caviar and champagne in the penthouse of a luxury skyscraper, at the bottom of the same building some homeless people are dumpster-diving for scraps to not die. Is it just me, or this system is just fucked beyond imagination?

You know what a Resource Based Economy is? The intelligent management of Earth's resources, on a global scale, where resources are distributed equally. Where the necessities of life are freely available to everyone, food, water, clothing, place to live, etc. Where people are educated to become versatile and productive members of society, educated in a wide variety of subjects. Where greed, hoarding of resources and dishonesty and even crime is non-existent, there is nothing to steal or hoard, because everything is freely available to everyone, and people are educated to respect each other. You need tools to do whatever you choose to do? Just ask for them, and you'll get them. You need transportation to another city? Use the free public transport system. You need a lawnmower? It will be made available to you, no questions asked. Just think about Star Trek, that universe has a similar system in place. They don't have money anymore, because it became irrelevant with the replicator system. We would not have such miraculous machines (yet), but we do have the technology to automate the mundane jobs of manufacturing, thereby alleviating people of the burden of having to work in a factory. We have energy sources, that can produce far more energy than we need and for free, like solar and wind power, tidal and wave power and the ultimate source is the Earth itself, geothermal power. We have the technology and the resources to harvest these incredible sources of power, right now. With free power, and automated manufacturing and machinery, there is no end to what we can accomplish as a society. We can break free from our blinding slave existence and turn our attention to the sciences, arts, philosophy, etc. Where, in fact, you can paint whatever you like and whenever you like, and you don't have to sell them for money, you just give it to society for everyones enrichment and entertainment, but it's not mandatory, you do whatever you want with it. But when you enjoy creating something, you'll enjoy giving it to other people, so they can be entertained by it.

As for incentive, this question always pops up whenever an idea like this gets on the table. Most people today think, that the monetary system produces incentive by producing scarcity and competition. That might be true, but getting rid of the monetary system does not mean the loss of incentives. In this new society, incentives change. You no longer do things to get money and survive, you do things for the betterment of the entire human race. You help others, and you yourself will be better for it, because the human race includes you also. If you help the young neighbor kid with his study of mathematics or art, that boy may become an important scientist or artist one day, thanks to your help, and he may produce some scientific breakthrough that will enhance your life immeasurably or produce a piece of art, that's beautiful. Or he might just become an electrician, but he'll be there to fix anything you need help with. But you may choose to not help him, and although he may still become a scientist or artist or electrician nevertheless, but he will have a significantly lesser chance. See, if you help other people, you make your own life better, too. If you paint a pretty picture and share it with people, they will be happy and love you for it, but someone might even get inspired by it and paint a piece of art so beautiful, that everyone will stand in awe of the sheer fucking beauty of it. And you will have the honor of creating the piece that inspired it. Or even you might be that guy, who get inspired by a piece of art created and shared by someone, and so on...

It's not a matter of people or industires, it's a matter of values. I don't know if you are familiar with the The Venus Project, they have the same idea as I did back when I thought about this, only they are making it happen. It's worth a look I think, if nothing more

As for copyright law, I don't care what pirates say. If I sell bootleg copies of a movie, I may not be affecting the source material directly, but I'm still diverting income from the makers of the movie. It may not be stealing in that I didn't steal a physical copy of the movie from anyone, but I'm certainly accepting money for something that isn't mine.

Pirate groups nowadays are just as much against getting money out of someone else's stuff as you are, they don't sell anything to anyone, they do what they are doing for free and instruct people in their release notes not to make money of their released stuff, in fact, they encourage people to buy the games, movies and stuff they enjoyed to help good companies produce good games/moves/etc. And it's not hypocrisy, because only the people who download these cracked releases will see these messages, no one else. And what they are doing is arguably the right thing, society has this all wrong in this case, because of the monetary system. Hell these pirates are more enlightened than the industry itself (the honest ones anyway). Because the only reason these developers are selling these games instead of sharing it with the world, is because they need money to pay the bills, eat, etc. But if money would be out of the picture for good, I bet they would just as happily make these games, because most of them do it for their love of games and the fun. The people who make people think pirates are greedy assholes who sell other peoples stuff for money, are simply greedy assholes, who sell freely available stuff. Even pirates loathe and discriminate those kinds of people.

In the future, developing games won't require thirty-odd people to be locked in an office building to develop a game, signing all kinds of non-disclosure agreements or shit like that. Why make 30 people do it when you have the whole fucking planet to help you out? We have the internet! Open-source software is just a start, but it's going places. When you'll have a problem, say, you want to create a better water animation for your game, you just post it online, and a horde of people will flock to help you out, for free. Even if you can't program for shit, but you have a great story that would be awesome in a game, you just post how you want your game to look, and people from all over the world will help you, because if the game is completed, they can play with it and enjoy your story, just as the rest of the world.

But sady, most of the people today don't understand any of this wall of text I presented here for clarification, and not because of the "tl;dr" factor. They simply can't think out of the box, can't imagine that something doesn't cost anyting, because the monetary system is so deeply rooted in our society we have all of our values and ideas based off of it. Many people, hearing this idea, would simply say "and who would pay for all this?" and when I say no one, they simply don't understand it. Money is so fucking weaved into our minds, that we have to struggle very hard to think about things not involving money. That's why it's hard to talk to people about this.

 

[SimuLord]

Every time I see that picture in a Needles article I think "when did Curt Schilling start writing for the Escapist?"

 

[commasplice]

Okay, we've gone off on a way crazy tangent, so I'm going to try and keep this brief.

Thank you, I guess...Although I'm not certain if you meant that as a genuine remark or some seething sarcasm, especially the one in brackets...

No, I meant that sincerely. I think the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed with me all of the time. I guess I should rephrase part of that, though. I don't so much have a problem with you as I do with what you were saying.

Now, I know you think I'm an utopist lunatic...

I don't think any such thing. You're not the one arguing support of a system that you know is broken. Then again, neither am I. Not really. I certainly think things need to change. I just don't think that a Utopian society will ever truly function properly.

Maybe some people inside the industry do care, but that construct around them, the industry itself, is a soulless machine with no morals, and with only one goal: get as much profit as possible. It's not a matter of single people, it's a matter of values, ideals and artificial systems like industries and companies. ... Just as you can't blame single cells in murderer's body for the act of killing another person, you can't blame the individual people inside the shambling monstrosity we know as industries for behaving as soulless, borderline evil sociopaths, hell bent on turning profit at any cost.

You're trying to differentiate between the industry and the people that it's made of. No, they're not exactly, the same, but the whole is still the sum of its parts. It's the people that decide how the industry acts, not the industry itself, so when you insult the collective, yes, you are insulting the individual as well. It would be akin to saying that Country X is a "soulless machine with no morals." Maybe you don't mean that about every individual Country X-ian, but you're still saying that, when you consider the whole, they have no souls or morals.

The whole point of this conversation, at least for me, is to discuss what's wrong with the system today and theorize about the way of how it could be or should be, some time in the future. ... When you work all day, just to get enough money to be able to continue working all day: it's a fucking trap. It's slavery. ... As I said earlier, centuries ago slavery required owners to feed and house their slaves in order for them to be able to work all day, but in modern slavery (in the monetary system), slaves are required to feed and house themselves. It's even worse. Either you step into the hamster-wheel, or you die. The system gives no alternative.

Nonsense. There's always an alternative. You could move out into the woods and live off the land, if you like. You might get arrested if you stay in one place too long, but it's still an alternative. You could also compromise and live "off-the-grid" like Les Stroud.
As I said before, I think our system is far from perfect and all of the Utopian ideology you're putting forth is nice in theory, but it would never work in practice because it's fundamentally flawed in a few ways. First, there's "Work v. Leisure." Even if we do manage to get resource management under control, etc., we'll still need people to work. Period. We need people to operate garbage trucks, we need people to scrub graffiti off of bathroom walls and we need people to do nothing but Xerox and fax papers all day. Most people don't like to do those jobs. If everyone's free to do whatever they want all day, who will take care of the most essential jobs in society?
We don't have the technology required to completely remove human beings from the workplace--even in factories. We may not need people to put cars together, but we still need people to design them, design more efficient machines to make them, fix the machines, fix the cars themselves, etc. We still need people to climb up telephone poles and repair power lines. We need people to farm crops and raise animals for slaughter. Computer programming isn't so advanced that it can make judgment calls the same way that human beings can and our machinery may be thousands of times more powerful than human arms will ever be, but we've just learned how to design robots that can walk. Even then, most of them (BigDog not withstanding) have to be pre-programmed to move their limbs in precise ways just to walk a couple of feet.

The poorest people on the planet work the hardest to sustain a meager existence of suffering and the people with the most money do virtually nothing but raking in ungodly amount of even more money with zero work on their part. Don't tell me that's not fucking absurd. ... Don't get me wrong, but I think you are not thinking on a grand enough scale for this matter. Why do we need anyone to "control the system"? What if we have a system that is not controlled by anyone?

Flaw #2: "Who's in Charge?" Someone needs to control the system. Without control, there is no system and without the system, there is no collective "society." Part of this is because of Flaw #3, which I'll get to in a moment. Even if we work out a system where everyone gets to participate in each piece of legislature, like the Asari have, we still need people to actually write the laws and others to enforce them. I don't know about you, but I had no idea what the differences between "fair use" and "fair dealing" were before Matt_LRR brought them to my attention. Most people aren't lawyers and, as such, probably wouldn't know how big of a difference not protecting parody and satire makes. Whoever writes the actual laws is free to word it ambiguously or deceptively to suit their own needs as they see fit. That doesn't mean that it'll get passed as such, but all you really need to do is convince people that, say, passing a bill that re-defines "right of the people to peaceably assemble" as "privilege of the people to peaceably assemble" is in their best interest because the guy who wrote it loves apple pie, eats freedom fries and God bless America. From there, it just becomes the same old "who can lobby the most and pump out the most propaganda?" nonsense that we see today. Sure, there's a solution to that, but it, too, has flaws.

I'm talking about a system, that has no need for government or control, because the people in it are educated enough to know what's good for them and what's not. Where everyone works for one common goal: the betterment and advancement of all humanity.

Flaw #2.5: "Who Decides What's Best?" Who decides what our kids are taught? Who decides what the "betterment and advancement of all humanity" is? There's no legislators or politicians, so I guess that means that everyone has a say. But will there be a consensus? Absolutely not. Why? Flaw #3. So what, then? Majority rules? That's not equality; that's the majority oppressing the minority, which is part of the reason you want the system to change, right? And again, what does and doesn't fall under that vaguely defined phrase will be determined by lobbying and propaganda.
Flaw #3: "People Are Human." No matter what you do, people will always make choices for themselves. No matter how much you teach or brainwash someone, at the end of the day, they will always be the ones deciding how they handle any given situation. You may be able to alter their options or even how they perceive the scenario, but they are still the ones in control. That being said, while I don't believe that anyone is inherently "evil," I do believe that there will always be people that put their wants and needs above those of others. You could be the best parent in the world, send your kid to the most expensive schools on the planet and provide for him as well as anyone might hope to, and he could still end up getting sent to jail or dying in a bad drug deal.
This leads back to the original topic and the purpose of copyright legislation: yeah, maybe not all pirates are in it to sell whatever IP they've ripped off, but there are certainly people out there who would. Complete deregulation just allows those people to take advantage of the rest of society more freely. Jail obviously isn't a big enough deterrent and certainly doesn't rehabilitate these people, so I don't know why doing away with law enforcement altogether would work any better. Again, there's a solution, but it's also flawed.

Also, there is no money, because it's irrelevant. Money was invented many millennia ago to act as a measure of debt in a less enlightened and technologically inferior world, where resources were scarce or unobtainable. That system is irrelevant, because, even now, today, we have the technology and the resources to house and feed every single human being on the planet. ... But sady, most of the people today don't understand any of this wall of text I presented here for clarification, and not because of the "tl;dr" factor. They simply can't think out of the box, can't imagine that something doesn't cost anyting, because the monetary system is so deeply rooted in our society we have all of our values and ideas based off of it.

Flaw #3.5: "Wants v. Needs." Even without money, people will still trade things. This is because, even if you can account for everyone's needs, you can't account for everyone's wants. The problem isn't money; the problem is a combination of the concept of ownership and the fact that some things are harder to come by than others.
I'd explain why open-source software has problems, too, but I feel like I've been ranting a little too long. So much for keeping it brief :/

 

[Playbahnosh]

Okay, we've gone off on a way crazy tangent, so I'm going to try and keep this brief.

So? As far I see it, topics get abandoned far too soon around here (and in forums in general), so I don't think it's really a bad thing if a conversation changes tracks on the way if it leads to some stimulating conversation about important topics. And we do need to talk about these things IMHO, because if we don't, we have to assume nobody will.

I don't think any such thing. You're not the one arguing support of a system that you know is broken. Then again, neither am I. Not really. I certainly think things need to change. I just don't think that a Utopian society will ever truly function properly.

No, what I, and the Venus Project for that matter, offer, is not utopia, it's not a perfect society, but it's one hell of a lot better than what we have now. Sure, we won't have the same problems with a Resource Based Economy, we will have different ones. As far as science and sociology goes, utopia is unattainable. But we can try, nevertheless...

You're trying to differentiate between the industry and the people that it's made of. No, they're not exactly, the same, but the whole is still the sum of its parts. It's the people that decide how the industry acts, not the industry itself, so when you insult the collective, yes, you are insulting the individual as well. It would be akin to saying that Country X is a "soulless machine with no morals." Maybe you don't mean that about every individual Country X-ian, but you're still saying that, when you consider the whole, they have no souls or morals.

Okay, I see your point. But there is a difference between the industry as an entity, and the people that it's made of. If the whole is really a sum of its parts, then why does it not work backwards, as the part is just a tiny slice of the whole? When you look at companies, that do harm for example, like dumping toxic waste onto a harbor in Argentina, destroying homes in Eritrea to get to oil, using child labor in China or committing all kinds of frauds, you can't declare the fact, that every single person within the company is a greedy, evil, sociopath. Maybe there are people in there, who do care about nature, maybe there are people in there who do have a problem with child labor and extorting money out of honest working people, and there may be even people who do what they do for all the wrong reasons, that they sincerely believe, what they are doing is right. You can't make generalizations in such a huge scale. It doesn't work that way. Just like you can't pinpoint the exact number of cells working together to be considered a living being, instead just a bunch of cells. What is the number of individual parts required for a bunch of people to be considered one single entity? It does not work backwards, because it's convenient. You said, when I insult a country, I insult every single people who live there, yet when a country attacks another for no reason, or commits a crime, you can't say that every single person in that country is guilty of war crimes, now can you? Generalizations like this, what lead to WWII, the holocaust, the KKK, the Wolf 359, and the Brood War.

In your assumption, all the people should be equally punished for the bad things the company they participate in is doing, yet they are not. After all, you can't have all the benefit, but none of the liability, it's not just. But now, the company is the one charged with committing these things, and the company pays the fines, not the individuals. Why? Because the company is a legal entity, a legal person in front of the law, and not the sum of its parts. It's awfully convenient, isn't it? The industries are not considered legal persons yet, but just like a company is a sum of the people in it, the industry is the sum of the companies in it. You need to, for a lack of a better phrase, zoom out to see the bigger picture. Remember Jurassic Park or Godzilla? You can't see the huge footprint if you are standing in it, you have to zoom out.

Nonsense. There's always an alternative. You could move out into the woods and live off the land, if you like. You might get arrested if you stay in one place too long, but it's still an alternative. You could also compromise and live "off-the-grid" like Les Stroud.

Le Stroud is a nice entertainment, watched from you living room sofa, but to live in the wilderness like paleolithic caveman? That wouldn't be all that better from the slave existence we live in now. No, we need progress. Sure, living off the grid, as producing your own food and energy and disconnecting yourself from the utilities might seem like a good idea, but there is a reason people won't go for it. The reason is, that governments and utility companies make your life a living hell if you try to do that. They depend on people depending on them (it's a mouthful I know, but still). I know a lot of people, who tried to build wind generators, solar panels and wells to support themselves and get off the grid, but governmental authorities denied them the permits or outright to refused to let them do it for different reasons. Or even if they could do it, getting off the grid, inspections, fines and other legal calamities made it far too expensive to remain that way. Another jolly gift of the monetary system and the profit pursuit: If you are not paying the utilities, you should not have them.

No, if you think about it, there is no alternative. Either you behave and slave along as a good "citizen", or you don't and die. These are the options. And it's the same in every place on the globe.

As I said before, I think our system is far from perfect and all of the Utopian ideology you're putting forth is nice in theory, but it would never work in practice because it's fundamentally flawed in a few ways. First, there's "Work v. Leisure." Even if we do manage to get resource management under control, etc., we'll still need people to work. Period. We need people to operate garbage trucks, we need people to scrub graffiti off of bathroom walls and we need people to do nothing but Xerox and fax papers all day. Most people don't like to do those jobs. If everyone's free to do whatever they want all day, who will take care of the most essential jobs in society?

With automation on a grand scale and clever design, we can do away with mundane jobs altogether. Garbage trucks could be automated with a GPS system, sensors and programming, just as we can create cleaning machines and the like. It's a far more technological society, where the source of the problem gets cured, not just treated superficially. Machines are just the extensions of human capabilities. If I can't unscrew a screw, I use a screwdriver, if I don't want to walk long distances, I get in a car, etc. All these technology at our disposal today made our lives easier, and we don't even notice them now, for the technological marvels they are, they are just taken for granted. Most of the people can't even imagine the magnitude of chances required for this to work. But please understand, that this won't happen overnight, it's not an instant change. But when people realize, that the future offered here is simply better than the one we are heading for right now, change will happen. They will understand, that we need to make certain and probably painful changes to make this work, but ultimately we will construct a better future for our children and the ones after them.

Computer programming isn't so advanced that it can make judgment calls the same way that human beings can and our machinery may be thousands of times more powerful than human arms will ever be, but we've just learned how to design robots that can walk. Even then, most of them (BigDog not withstanding) have to be pre-programmed to move their limbs in precise ways just to walk a couple of feet.

Yes, computer don't make decisions like human beings, and thank heavens for that, that's exactly the point. Computers are not judgmental or emotional, they don't have preconceptions, ideals and they don't play favorites. Computers make decisions based on pure data and arrive to a decision much faster and more accurately. In a Resource Based Economy, there will be a global system, that monitors resources, the state of the planet and all the living things on it. There will be a global network of satellites, sensors and devices designed to tell us exactly how much resources we have at any given moment and the exact state of our planet, the ecosystem, everything. The system will make certain decisions for us, that we can't make on our own, such as the distribution of resources and will propose certain enhancements to better our existence. There are things, that we humans simply can't do on our on, but machines and computers can extend our capabilities in such ways, that we will be able to.

Okay, I know what you are thinking: "Fucking Skynet, huh?"
Well, no, there is no such a thing as murderous computers, just in movies. Jaques Fresco said during one of the Q&A sessions, "If you took your laptop and smashed it in front of 50 other laptops, trust me, none of them would care." Unlike people, machines are unemotional, unaggressive, have no ego, etc. Computers have a clean decision making process based on raw data. If these computers are designed to help, they will help, if they are designed to hurt, they will hurt, computers don't have free will, computers do what we program them to do, they are tools. If we program the global system to oversee the state and the resources of the Earth, their distribution in an impartial and honest way, that's what it will do, nothing more, nothing less.

Flaw #2: "Who's in Charge?"

As I said, no one is in charge. The only honest system is the one, where no one has more control or power than the others. You don't need anyone with ultimate power to control a system for it to work. Take an analog watch for example, it has many-many parts, cogs and wheels working together, it has a single purpose of showing you the correct time anytime you look at it, and it is powered either mechanically or electronically. It works, yet no ones is there to supervise it, no one standing beside you to control the watch on your wrist, yet it works. A good society does not need "control" in the classic sense of the word.

You talked about laws and legislation, government, etc, but what if I say, we wouldn't have any of those in this new society? None of them. No laws, no governments, no police, no prisons, lawyers, no nothing, because they will be irrelevant. Laws are remnants of an old system that is no longer relevan, yes you guessed it, in part the monetary system, but it's not that simple. Laws were invented, again, many millennia ago, to exact control over people, who wouldn't know any better. Back then, people were uneducated technologically, sociologically, philosophically...in every single way. They couldn't tell right from wrong, they were unable to make educated decisions and had a culture inferior in every way compared to ours now. They needed a set or guidelines to teach people how to behave, to not kill others, not to cheat others or steal things from others, but these guidelines, when deviated from, had repercussions to drive the point home, and this combination is called a law. They needed these laws, because they simply didn't know any better, they were not educated to know any better. But if you, from a very young age, are taught, educated to arrive to decisions on your own, educated in various subjects to be a versatile decision maker, to be able to decide right from wrong using all the available data at your disposal, you won't need lawyers, governments or politicians to tell you what to do. You will know.

Flaw #3: "People Are Human."

A society is a certain way of life. Contrary to popular belief, all behavior is learned behavior, there is no such a thing as human nature. It's a false belief, that humans are pre-programmed with certain preconceptions or tendencies at birth, that "all humans are greedy, murderous assholes because of the survival instinct, we live together in groups because of the herd instinct, etc", no, that's all false. We have certain reflexes, like the "fight or flight" or being afraid of high places, but nothing as complex as behavioral patterns, no and we have brains, that can overrule even these basic instincts. It's all learned behavior. If, for example, you grow up with the natives on an island near Tahiti, you will learn their way of life, their beliefs and "nature". If you don't wear clothes from birth, and see all the people walking around nude, you will accept that as normal, and if someone shows you a western magazine with nude women in them, you won't understand what's so special about it, you won't understand the the appeal. When the fishers come to shore, and distribute the fish amongst the tribes-people, you will accept that notion as normal, and later, when you go fishing, you will distribute the catch among the people too, because that's what you learned to do. That notion is a minor slice of Resource Based Economy, to share everything. And if you are brought up in that system, you will inherit it's values. Just as if now you were brought up in a run down ghetto in a huge metropolis, surrounded by criminals, hookers and junkies, you will most likely learn the behavior of them, and become a jaded criminal or a drug addict or both. It's all about education and the surroundings you were brought up into, there is no human nature, only learned behavior. If you are brought up to respect others, and to further society as whole thereby furthering your existence, that's what you will follow.

Flaw #2.5: "Who Decides What's Best?" Who decides what our kids are taught? Who decides what the "betterment and advancement of all humanity" is?

Are you familiar with the scientific method? It's a decision making process, that involves gathering of scientific, empirical and measurable information and applying that information to arrive to a decision, updating and re-evaluating past conceptions as necessary. There are very few really incontestable things in science, like the simple notions that "fire is hot" or "ice is cold". Of course that's not that simple, but I guess you get the point. There are equally incontestable facts in human functions, like we need nutritious food, clean water, protective clothing and a place to sleep to survive. These are just the basics every human needs. There are also facts, like, if we kill our planet, we die with it. We need to protect the environment, the animals and the whole ecosystem. We need to handle resources in honest and economically plausible ways to survive and advance. These facts, and others of course, combined will be the guidelines we will follow. There will be no one to decide what's best, the scientific method with decide it, not a single person or groups of persons, that's counter productive and irrelevant, since no single person on persons can know all the information necessary to make that decision. It will be a complex system of scientific method, the global cybernated system and, yes, consensus, to determine what would be best step forward, but it will not control us, free will is still in effect. There will be mini-referendums about things that concern a group of people, like where to build the next city, gallery or movie theater, but ultimately the decision will be made as to what's best for everyone involved.

This leads back to the original topic and the purpose of copyright legislation: yeah, maybe not all pirates are in it to sell whatever IP they've ripped off, but there are certainly people out there who would. Complete deregulation just allows those people to take advantage of the rest of society more freely. Jail obviously isn't a big enough deterrent and certainly doesn't rehabilitate these people, so I don't know why doing away with law enforcement altogether would work any better. Again, there's a solution, but it's also flawed.

That's exactly the solution, doing away with legislation and money altogether. People then can't sell the IPs they are "ripping off" because there is no one to buy it. Jails do nothing to stop crime, for the simple reason of not being designed to do it. It's a superficial treatment, to lock away people that are already criminals, but that does nothing to stop them from becoming one in the first place. If you are ill, it's not enough to treat the symptoms, you need a cure. We need to look at the problems, look at the cause of the problems and devise a cure, not just a treatment. Why do criminals become criminals in the first place, what makes them steal, kill or cheat others? Why do they do it? What's the cause? And what can we do to eliminate that cause? That's how a scientist thinks, that's how problems are solved, not just treated.

Quick, tell me the first thing that pops into you mind as cause of piracy? "Because games cost money and people don't want to pay for them", right? Then why not eliminate the cause? Make games free. Hell, make everything free. When there will be a nearly limitless source of energy and machines to work for us, there will be no reason to ask for anything in return for stuff that is made for free, right? Now, we only need to design and implement a system that makes it possible. Problem solved. Sure, it sounds easy on paper, implementing it will be long and arduous journey, but in the end, it will be reality.

Flaw #3.5: "Wants v. Needs." Even without money, people will still trade things. This is because, even if you can account for everyone's needs, you can't account for everyone's wants. The problem isn't money; the problem is a combination of the concept of ownership and the fact that some things are harder to come by than others.

The concept of personal possession, ownership and barter is, guess what, a remnant of the fucking monetary system. In a world, where everything is freely available to you, there will be no need for personal property. If you want a pencil, you get one, if you need a computer, just ask for it, if you need transportation, it will be made available to you. The same things are available to everyone else, there will be no reason you would keep something just for the sake of it being yours, that's irrelevant. If you no longer need something, and someone asks you for it, why not just give it to them? Why keep a lawnmower, when you have no lawn to mow? But if your neighbor has an overgrown lawn, and no mower...you catch my drift? Most of the stuff will be public property, usable by anyone and everyone who needs it. Stuff will be manufactured on demand, no stores, no barter, no choosing from thousands of brands. You'll always get the best and most advanced form of the thing you need. Of course things will be customizable to a certain degree, and if you no longer need it, and no one else wants it, it will be recycled to produce other stuff from the components. Privacy will be respected, as always, so your home will be yours to live in, but you can freely choose where you want to live, anywhere on the planet. As for unique or scarce things, like art pieces or things like that, an effort will be made to share it with others, art will be displayed publicly like sculptures or paintings and based on form, will be available for sharing, like music, movies, or games. Human behavior will be different, people will realize, that don't have to own something to enjoy it.

Okay, this post is so fucking long. Sorry about that. But I tend to overemphasize and clarify things, so there will be no misunderstanding, yet sometimes people still misunderstand what I wanna tell. I hope you don't blame for that, but we need to talk about these things in depth.

 

[mrx19869]

If i buy something no matter what it is, after i have payed for it, with my money... well i believe that i should be able to do whatever i want with it..

ohh just to prove how messed up copyright laws in the USA.

its actually against NFL copyright rules to watch the super bowl on a tv larger that 50inches. at a super bowl party..

 

[commasplice]

You said, when I insult a country, I insult every single people who live there, yet when a country attacks another for no reason, or commits a crime, you can't say that every single person in that country is guilty of war crimes, now can you? Generalizations like this, what lead to WWII, the holocaust, the KKK, the Wolf 359, and the Brood War. ... In your assumption, all the people should be equally punished for the bad things the company they participate in is doing, yet they are not.

I never said that each person in a collective shares equal responsibility. In fact, that was kind of my point. You can't cast blame on a group without casting blame on each of its parts at the same time. You said, "Maybe some people inside the industry do care, but that construct around them, the industry itself, is a soulless machine with no morals," and I was trying to point out that there is no construct around them. Industries are made of human beings. They are the construct. You can't hate the "soulless machine" because there is no soulless machine; there are only groups of people. Your problem isn't with whole companies, but the people at the top who use them to take advantage of others and the ones who are wise to it, but let it happen anyway.

...but to live in the wilderness like paleolithic caveman? That wouldn't be all that better from the slave existence we live in now. ... No, if you think about it, there is no alternative. Either you behave and slave along as a good "citizen", or you don't and die. These are the options. And it's the same in every place on the globe.

Just because you don't like an alternative doesn't mean it doesn't exist and just because the powers that be won't make it easy for you doesn't mean it's impossible. Like I said, there are always alternatives. Your options aren't simply "suck it up or die" and even if they were, you're still free to choose whichever you please. Hell, you even introduced a third option earlier in this very thread. You don't like how things work? Change them. Stage protests, start fundraisers, raise awareness of the problem. The people behind the Venus Project certainly don't seem to think there are only two solutions to this dilemma. None of these people seemed to think that the only way to handle one's problems is to roll over and die.

With automation on a grand scale and clever design, we can do away with mundane jobs altogether. Garbage trucks could be automated with a GPS system, sensors and programming, just as we can create cleaning machines and the like. ... But please understand, that this won't happen overnight, it's not an instant change. But when people realize, that the future offered here is simply better than the one we are heading for right now, change will happen. They will understand, that we need to make certain and probably painful changes to make this work, but ultimately we will construct a better future for our children and the ones after them.

Yes, and in the future, we'll be able to correct all sorts of genetic diseases in the womb. In the future, we'll have faster-than-light space travel. In the future, everyone will wear black and speak in riddles. That's all well and good, but like you said, none of it is going to happen overnight and it's certainly not going to happen unless we're realistic about it. We don't even know for a fact that we'll ever be able to design a computer powerful enough to ensure the livelihood of the whole fucking planet all at once. Oh, it's a possibility, but it's not a certainty. Half a century ago, we were certain that, by now, we'd all be riding to work with jet packs and conversing in Newspeak.
Have you given any thought to how we're going to get there in the first place? It would be nice to have garbage trucks that drive themselves, but the fact is that we're nowhere close to that kind of technology yet. It's taking all we have just to program a car that can effectively drive itself through the desert, without other cars on the road, without convoluted traffic laws to obey and without frequent stops to make. And that's just the driving bit. We're going to need a system for the trash to actually get in and out of the truck, too. Yeah, I know, we'll have a super duper efficient society, so that won't cost anything because there won't be any money, but, that's the end game. Right now, people still have to do most manual labor themselves (or, at the very least, operate most of the machinery that does it) and stuff still costs money.
Besides that, we still don't know that this would even be more efficient than using human beings. I assume we're going to want the car-bots to be energy-efficient, which means we're going to have to convert to alternative fuel sources, which means we're going to have to pump money and resources into THAT before these mass-produced self-driving cars ever get off the ground. Even discounting money itself, we still need materials to make these things out of--materials that have a limited quantity and that we may need to make other things, too. Why would we spend all of that time and money trying to develop a way to eliminate people from the workplace when those same resources could be spent on things that are actually necessary like housing and solar energy plants?

Yes, computer don't make decisions like human beings, and thank heavens for that, that's exactly the point. Computers are not judgmental or emotional, they don't have preconceptions, ideals and they don't play favorites. ... Unlike people, machines are unemotional, unaggressive, have no ego, etc. Computers have a clean decision making process based on raw data. If these computers are designed to help, they will help, if they are designed to hurt, they will hurt, computers don't have free will, computers do what we program them to do, they are tools.

I think you kinda missed my point, Homeslice. Have you ever seen I, Robot? Well, part of the main character's back story is that he hates robots because, sometime prior to the events of the movie, he was in a car crash and a robot that was on the scene chose to save him and let a little girl drown. It had calculated that he would have a better chance of surviving and acted accordingly. That's what I was talking about when I said, "judgment calls." Here's another one. Have you ever played Mass Effect?

Spoiler

There's a part in the first game where you meet a computer program that was tasked with the upkeep of an ancient research facility. The VI tells you that war broke out and the people who made and originally worked in the facility had to seek refuge deep within the labs. They were put into stasis until such time that the danger had passed and they could be revived, yadda yadda. Well, that never really happened. As the centuries went on and the danger lingered, the VI eventually had to start powering down the stasis pods of "nonessential" personnel--effectively killing them--so that it could conserve power and support the rest of the population.

I don't know about you, but I don't really feel safe letting a computer program make life-or-death choices, regardless of how "fair" it may have been programmed to be.

A good society does not need "control" in the classic sense of the word. ... You talked about laws and legislation, government, etc, but what if I say, we wouldn't have any of those in this new society? None of them. No laws, no governments, no police, no prisons, lawyers, no nothing, because they will be irrelevant.

You can say that all you want, but that doesn't make it feasible. You say they will be irrelevant, I say they will always be relevant.

They needed these laws, because they simply didn't know any better, they were not educated to know any better. But if you, from a very young age, are taught, educated to arrive to decisions on your own, educated in various subjects to be a versatile decision maker, to be able to decide right from wrong using all the available data at your disposal, you won't need lawyers, governments or politicians to tell you what to do. You will know.

Bullshit. Plain and simple. People aren't simply products of their upbringing. There's plenty of other things involved such as genetics and brain structure. Even identical twins that are raised by the same people in the same ways have differences in personality. No amount of education alone will ever ensure that everyone makes the same decisions or holds the same values, which is partially because not everyone processes the same bits of information in the same way. On top of that, knowing the difference between right and wrong isn't enough to actually keep someone from breaking the law. A friend of mine's grandfather was sent to prison for murdering his ex-wife's new boyfriend. According to my friend, he was actually a really nice guy. He wasn't a psychopath or anything--he just let his anger take over and did something horrible and irreversible on impulse. "Good" people do "bad" things every single day. This is an irrefutable reality of the world we live in, not just some by-product of modern society that can be remedied with copious amounts of after school specials.

We have certain reflexes, like the "fight or flight" or being afraid of high places, but nothing as complex as behavioral patterns, no and we have brains, that can overrule even these basic instincts. It's all learned behavior.

So, what, people with psychological disorders are like that purely because of their environments? Do you have any evidence to support that at all? I think quite a few behavioural geneticists might take issue with that statement. Sure, plenty of our behavior is learned, but like I said before, that's not all we are.

If, for example, you grow up with the natives on an island near Tahiti, you will learn their way of life, their beliefs and "nature". ... Just as if now you were brought up in a run down ghetto in a huge metropolis, surrounded by criminals, hookers and junkies, you will most likely learn the behavior of them, and become a jaded criminal or a drug addict or both. It's all about education and the surroundings you were brought up into, there is no human nature, only learned behavior. If you are brought up to respect others, and to further society as whole thereby furthering your existence, that's what you will follow.

You could not be any more wrong, my friend. My mother grew up in west Philadelphia. It may not be Detroit, but it certainly isn't the best neighborhood in the world. She spent the better part of her childhood being beaten by her mother (who I'm pretty sure has undiagnosed borderline personality disorder) and largely ignored by her father. She didn't become a drug addict, she's not a criminal and she didn't drop out of school. She's a Navy vet who graduated from college as a salutatorian and went on to get a degree from Stanford Law--all while raising me by herself. She was raised as a Christian, but she raised me as an atheist. She was taught as a child that it's okay for big people to hurt little people, but she didn't beat me like her mother did her. When she got accepted to Stanford, her father actually asked, "How do you know it's not just one of your friends playing a trick on you?" but she never gave me any similar treatment. She's always believed in me and encouraged me to live up to my potential, whatever that may be.

So don't tell me that we're purely products of our environments. It's bullshit. Just because you're raised a certain way or habituated to certain behavior does not mean that you will replicate or otherwise perpetuate that behavior. People make their own choices.

There are equally incontestable facts in human functions, like we need nutritious food, clean water, protective clothing and a place to sleep to survive. These are just the basics every human needs. There are also facts, like, if we kill our planet, we die with it. We need to protect the environment, the animals and the whole ecosystem.

Vast, vast, vast, vast, vast oversimplification. Yes, fire is hot and yes, everyone needs food, but not all sociopolitical issues are that simple. If they were, we would've solved them all years ago. What's "best" for some may not be what's "best" for all. "Good" and "bad" are largely subjective. Their definitions depend on what you're talking about and who you're asking. The two examples I gave earlier about artificial intelligence deciding things for us fit well here. Let's think up another one, though.
How about food? What happens if there's a food shortage and we don't have enough to feed everyone? Who gets to eat, then? Don't tell me that it wouldn't happen, either. I don't care how smart your future computer is, there are still such things as natural disasters. There are still bugs and diseases that kill crops. There are still earthquakes and meteors. What happens if an earthquake takes down the future computer and a resulting tsunami wipes out a decent portion of our food? Not only do we not have enough to feed everyone, but we've got no computer to manage the entire fucking planet.
Here's another one: what if a new, extremely deadly and contagious disease breaks out, but we don't have the medicine to cure it? Let's call it Spanish Flu 3.0. Let's say we manage to catch it early and isolate the would-be pandemic when it's only spread through the population of, say, a single city. So, we've got these poor, sick people quarantined while we're working on a treatment--that we might not even be able to finish in time--when a hurricane hits. Now, not only are these people dying of disease, but their city is flooded, buildings are ruined, there's even more mass panic and no way to apply aid or evacuate them without risking spreading the contagion. What's "best" for humanity would be to let the survivors die. That way, SF3 dies out with them and we don't have to divert any resources to a rescue effort. That's the logical solution. Is it an ethical one, though? Hell no. But your future computer doesn't give a shit about that. It doesn't favor some people over others. It exists to serve the "greater good." It's not going to risk the deaths of 50 million people if we can cut our losses at 1.5.

That's exactly the solution, doing away with legislation and money altogether. People then can't sell the IPs they are "ripping off" because there is no one to buy it. Jails do nothing to stop crime, for the simple reason of not being designed to do it. It's a superficial treatment, to lock away people that are already criminals, but that does nothing to stop them from becoming one in the first place. ... When there will be a nearly limitless source of energy and machines to work for us, there will be no reason to ask for anything in return for stuff that is made for free, right?

Like I said before, we don't have limitless resources. We don't have the resources or the ability to give every single person on the planet everything they will ever want ever. Not everyone can have a working car. Not everyone can have a brand-new TV. Not everyone can have a computer. Because of this some things have more value than others and people will try to trade to get them.

The concept of personal possession, ownership and barter is, guess what, a remnant of the fucking monetary system. In a world, where everything is freely available to you, there will be no need for personal property. If you want a pencil, you get one, if you need a computer, just ask for it, if you need transportation, it will be made available to you. The same things are available to everyone else, there will be no reason you would keep something just for the sake of it being yours, that's irrelevant.

You've got it backwards. The monetary system is a product of the concept of ownership, not the other way around. We needed to develop a way to track debt because we were already trading our possessions.
Again, we can't make infinite amounts of everything and even if we could, keeping things for the sake of keeping them is very relevant. People keep photo albums, baby booties, umbilical cords, letters, journals, personal possession of dead loved ones--all sorts of things--because they have value. Even if you can't sell them, some things still have value because of the memories attached to them.

its actually against NFL copyright rules to watch the super bowl on a tv larger that 50inches. at a super bowl party..

Actually, it's not NFL rules--it's federal law--and it's apparently 55". I'm still not sure I believe it, though. I mean...really?

 

[mrx19869]

You said, when I insult a country, I insult every single people who live there, yet when a country attacks another for no reason, or commits a crime, you can't say that every single person in that country is guilty of war crimes, now can you? Generalizations like this, what lead to WWII, the holocaust, the KKK, the Wolf 359, and the Brood War. ... In your assumption, all the people should be equally punished for the bad things the company they participate in is doing, yet they are not.

I never said that each person in a collective shares equal responsibility. In fact, that was kind of my point. You can't cast blame on a group without casting blame on each of its parts at the same time. You said, "Maybe some people inside the industry do care, but that construct around them, the industry itself, is a soulless machine with no morals," and I was trying to point out that there is no construct around them. Industries are made of human beings. They are the construct. You can't hate the "soulless machine" because there is no soulless machine; there are only groups of people. Your problem isn't with whole companies, but the people at the top who use them to take advantage of others and the ones who are wise to it, but let it happen anyway.

...but to live in the wilderness like paleolithic caveman? That wouldn't be all that better from the slave existence we live in now. ... No, if you think about it, there is no alternative. Either you behave and slave along as a good "citizen", or you don't and die. These are the options. And it's the same in every place on the globe.

Just because you don't like an alternative doesn't mean it doesn't exist and just because the powers that be won't make it easy for you doesn't mean it's impossible. Like I said, there are always alternatives. Your options aren't simply "suck it up or die" and even if they were, you're still free to choose whichever you please. Hell, you even introduced a third option earlier in this very thread. You don't like how things work? Change them. Stage protests, start fundraisers, raise awareness of the problem. The people behind the Venus Project certainly don't seem to think there are only two solutions to this dilemma. None of these people seemed to think that the only way to handle one's problems is to roll over and die.

With automation on a grand scale and clever design, we can do away with mundane jobs altogether. Garbage trucks could be automated with a GPS system, sensors and programming, just as we can create cleaning machines and the like. ... But please understand, that this won't happen overnight, it's not an instant change. But when people realize, that the future offered here is simply better than the one we are heading for right now, change will happen. They will understand, that we need to make certain and probably painful changes to make this work, but ultimately we will construct a better future for our children and the ones after them.

Yes, and in the future, we'll be able to correct all sorts of genetic diseases in the womb. In the future, we'll have faster-than-light space travel. In the future, everyone will wear black and speak in riddles. That's all well and good, but like you said, none of it is going to happen overnight and it's certainly not going to happen unless we're realistic about it. We don't even know for a fact that we'll ever be able to design a computer powerful enough to ensure the livelihood of the whole fucking planet all at once. Oh, it's a possibility, but it's not a certainty. Half a century ago, we were certain that, by now, we'd all be riding to work with jet packs and conversing in Newspeak.
Have you given any thought to how we're going to get there in the first place? It would be nice to have garbage trucks that drive themselves, but the fact is that we're nowhere close to that kind of technology yet. It's taking all we have just to program a car that can effectively drive itself through the desert, without other cars on the road, without convoluted traffic laws to obey and without frequent stops to make. And that's just the driving bit. We're going to need a system for the trash to actually get in and out of the truck, too. Yeah, I know, we'll have a super duper efficient society, so that won't cost anything because there won't be any money, but, that's the end game. Right now, people still have to do most manual labor themselves (or, at the very least, operate most of the machinery that does it) and stuff still costs money.
Besides that, we still don't know that this would even be more efficient than using human beings. I assume we're going to want the car-bots to be energy-efficient, which means we're going to have to convert to alternative fuel sources, which means we're going to have to pump money and resources into THAT before these mass-produced self-driving cars ever get off the ground. Even discounting money itself, we still need materials to make these things out of--materials that have a limited quantity and that we may need to make other things, too. Why would we spend all of that time and money trying to develop a way to eliminate people from the workplace when those same resources could be spent on things that are actually necessary like housing and solar energy plants?

Yes, computer don't make decisions like human beings, and thank heavens for that, that's exactly the point. Computers are not judgmental or emotional, they don't have preconceptions, ideals and they don't play favorites. ... Unlike people, machines are unemotional, unaggressive, have no ego, etc. Computers have a clean decision making process based on raw data. If these computers are designed to help, they will help, if they are designed to hurt, they will hurt, computers don't have free will, computers do what we program them to do, they are tools.

I think you kinda missed my point, Homeslice. Have you ever seen I, Robot? Well, part of the main character's back story is that he hates robots because, sometime prior to the events of the movie, he was in a car crash and a robot that was on the scene chose to save him and let a little girl drown. It had calculated that he would have a better chance of surviving and acted accordingly. That's what I was talking about when I said, "judgment calls." Here's another one. Have you ever played Mass Effect?

Spoiler

There's a part in the first game where you meet a computer program that was tasked with the upkeep of an ancient research facility. The VI tells you that war broke out and the people who made and originally worked in the facility had to seek refuge deep within the labs. They were put into stasis until such time that the danger had passed and they could be revived, yadda yadda. Well, that never really happened. As the centuries went on and the danger lingered, the VI eventually had to start powering down the stasis pods of "nonessential" personnel--effectively killing them--so that it could conserve power and support the rest of the population.

I don't know about you, but I don't really feel safe letting a computer program make life-or-death choices, regardless of how "fair" it may have been programmed to be.

A good society does not need "control" in the classic sense of the word. ... You talked about laws and legislation, government, etc, but what if I say, we wouldn't have any of those in this new society? None of them. No laws, no governments, no police, no prisons, lawyers, no nothing, because they will be irrelevant.

You can say that all you want, but that doesn't make it feasible. You say they will be irrelevant, I say they will always be relevant.

They needed these laws, because they simply didn't know any better, they were not educated to know any better. But if you, from a very young age, are taught, educated to arrive to decisions on your own, educated in various subjects to be a versatile decision maker, to be able to decide right from wrong using all the available data at your disposal, you won't need lawyers, governments or politicians to tell you what to do. You will know.

Bullshit. Plain and simple. People aren't simply products of their upbringing. There's plenty of other things involved such as genetics and brain structure. Even identical twins that are raised by the same people in the same ways have differences in personality. No amount of education alone will ever ensure that everyone makes the same decisions or holds the same values, which is partially because not everyone processes the same bits of information in the same way. On top of that, knowing the difference between right and wrong isn't enough to actually keep someone from breaking the law. A friend of mine's grandfather was sent to prison for murdering his ex-wife's new boyfriend. According to my friend, he was actually a really nice guy. He wasn't a psychopath or anything--he just let his anger take over and did something horrible and irreversible on impulse. "Good" people do "bad" things every single day. This is an irrefutable reality of the world we live in, not just some by-product of modern society that can be remedied with copious amounts of after school specials.

We have certain reflexes, like the "fight or flight" or being afraid of high places, but nothing as complex as behavioral patterns, no and we have brains, that can overrule even these basic instincts. It's all learned behavior.

So, what, people with psychological disorders are like that purely because of their environments? Do you have any evidence to support that at all? I think quite a few behavioural geneticists might take issue with that statement. Sure, plenty of our behavior is learned, but like I said before, that's not all we are.

If, for example, you grow up with the natives on an island near Tahiti, you will learn their way of life, their beliefs and "nature". ... Just as if now you were brought up in a run down ghetto in a huge metropolis, surrounded by criminals, hookers and junkies, you will most likely learn the behavior of them, and become a jaded criminal or a drug addict or both. It's all about education and the surroundings you were brought up into, there is no human nature, only learned behavior. If you are brought up to respect others, and to further society as whole thereby furthering your existence, that's what you will follow.

You could not be any more wrong, my friend. My mother grew up in west Philadelphia. It may not be Detroit, but it certainly isn't the best neighborhood in the world. She spent the better part of her childhood being beaten by her mother (who I'm pretty sure has undiagnosed borderline personality disorder) and largely ignored by her father. She didn't become a drug addict, she's not a criminal and she didn't drop out of school. She's a Navy vet who graduated from college as a salutatorian and went on to get a degree from Stanford Law--all while raising me by herself. She was raised as a Christian, but she raised me as an atheist. She was taught as a child that it's okay for big people to hurt little people, but she didn't beat me like her mother did her. When she got accepted to Stanford, her father actually asked, "How do you know it's not just one of your friends playing a trick on you?" but she never gave me any similar treatment. She's always believed in me and encouraged me to live up to my potential, whatever that may be.

So don't tell me that we're purely products of our environments. It's bullshit. Just because you're raised a certain way or habituated to certain behavior does not mean that you will replicate or otherwise perpetuate that behavior. People make their own choices.

There are equally incontestable facts in human functions, like we need nutritious food, clean water, protective clothing and a place to sleep to survive. These are just the basics every human needs. There are also facts, like, if we kill our planet, we die with it. We need to protect the environment, the animals and the whole ecosystem.

Vast, vast, vast, vast, vast oversimplification. Yes, fire is hot and yes, everyone needs food, but not all sociopolitical issues are that simple. If they were, we would've solved them all years ago. What's "best" for some may not be what's "best" for all. "Good" and "bad" are largely subjective. Their definitions depend on what you're talking about and who you're asking. The two examples I gave earlier about artificial intelligence deciding things for us fit well here. Let's think up another one, though.
How about food? What happens if there's a food shortage and we don't have enough to feed everyone? Who gets to eat, then? Don't tell me that it wouldn't happen, either. I don't care how smart your future computer is, there are still such things as natural disasters. There are still bugs and diseases that kill crops. There are still earthquakes and meteors. What happens if an earthquake takes down the future computer and a resulting tsunami wipes out a decent portion of our food? Not only do we not have enough to feed everyone, but we've got no computer to manage the entire fucking planet.
Here's another one: what if a new, extremely deadly and contagious disease breaks out, but we don't have the medicine to cure it? Let's call it Spanish Flu 3.0. Let's say we manage to catch it early and isolate the would-be pandemic when it's only spread through the population of, say, a single city. So, we've got these poor, sick people quarantined while we're working on a treatment--that we might not even be able to finish in time--when a hurricane hits. Now, not only are these people dying of disease, but their city is flooded, buildings are ruined, there's even more mass panic and no way to apply aid or evacuate them without risking spreading the contagion. What's "best" for humanity would be to let the survivors die. That way, SF3 dies out with them and we don't have to divert any resources to a rescue effort. That's the logical solution. Is it an ethical one, though? Hell no. But your future computer doesn't give a shit about that. It doesn't favor some people over others. It exists to serve the "greater good." It's not going to risk the deaths of 50 million people if we can cut our losses at 1.5.

That's exactly the solution, doing away with legislation and money altogether. People then can't sell the IPs they are "ripping off" because there is no one to buy it. Jails do nothing to stop crime, for the simple reason of not being designed to do it. It's a superficial treatment, to lock away people that are already criminals, but that does nothing to stop them from becoming one in the first place. ... When there will be a nearly limitless source of energy and machines to work for us, there will be no reason to ask for anything in return for stuff that is made for free, right?

Like I said before, we don't have limitless resources. We don't have the resources or the ability to give every single person on the planet everything they will ever want ever. Not everyone can have a working car. Not everyone can have a brand-new TV. Not everyone can have a computer. Because of this some things have more value than others and people will try to trade to get them.

The concept of personal possession, ownership and barter is, guess what, a remnant of the fucking monetary system. In a world, where everything is freely available to you, there will be no need for personal property. If you want a pencil, you get one, if you need a computer, just ask for it, if you need transportation, it will be made available to you. The same things are available to everyone else, there will be no reason you would keep something just for the sake of it being yours, that's irrelevant.

You've got it backwards. The monetary system is a product of the concept of ownership, not the other way around. We needed to develop a way to track debt because we were already trading our possessions.
Again, we can't make infinite amounts of everything and even if we could, keeping things for the sake of keeping them is very relevant. People keep photo albums, baby booties, umbilical cords, letters, journals, personal possession of dead loved ones--all sorts of things--because they have value. Even if you can't sell them, some things still have value because of the memories attached to them.

its actually against NFL copyright rules to watch the super bowl on a tv larger that 50inches. at a super bowl party..

Actually, it's not NFL rules--it's federal law--and it's apparently 55". I'm still not sure I believe it, though. I mean...really?

oh yeah its true. its in legal talk but here is where it is written

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html

its very interesting, reading this i know i have broken the copyright laws, ive had a superbowl party with more that 1 55 inch TV in that room, and more than 6 loudspeaker...

 

[Playbahnosh]

Wow, this discussion is certainly getting interesting. I like that.

I never said that each person in a collective shares equal responsibility. In fact, that was kind of my point. You can't cast blame on a group without casting blame on each of its parts at the same time. You said, "Maybe some people inside the industry do care, but that construct around them, the industry itself, is a soulless machine with no morals," and I was trying to point out that there is no construct around them. Industries are made of human beings. They are the construct. You can't hate the "soulless machine" because there is no soulless machine; there are only groups of people. Your problem isn't with whole companies, but the people at the top who use them to take advantage of others and the ones who are wise to it, but let it happen anyway.

What I meant to say was, that each person in a collective should share equal responsibility, since they get most of the benefits being in a collective, yet none or little responsibility. Even the leaders of a certain collective, like a company, enjoy a lot of the benefits, yet they are protected before the law by the concept of the company itself (being a legal person and all that). A company is essentially a group of people working towards a common goal, right now it's mostly profit. Yet, the law differentiates between people in the company and the company itself. There is no legal term for industry just yet, but industries are simply groups of companies. Groups upon groups upon groups of people. But when this many people get together in a single construct (as you said, the construct is made of these people, like I said, only my wording was different), and there is a legal and socio-economic framework to hold it together, things change. Just like, if you have a bunch of Lego bricks, individually they are just bricks, but when you put them together, stack them upon each other, you are going to see a shape taking form, say, a house. That house is a house in itself, since it looks like a house, behaves like a house, so it's a house. But it's also the product of the little bricks it's made of. The bricks are the same bricks that were scattered around the floor, individually they still have their color, form, everything that makes a Lego brick, well, a Lego brick. But when put into a construct (house), they will be part of that, too. A Lego brick in a Lego house behaves as a part of that house, because it's bound by the construct. You see where I'm getting at?

People in a company, and companies in the industry, behave as a part of their respective collectives. How that huge construct behaves, is not necessarily the behavior of the individual cells in it. That behavior is mostly a result of the framework they are bound by, and to some extent the average behavior of it's parts. In the case of companies, the behavior is mostly bound by the economic and legal framework of a company. A company's only goal is to produce profit. That means getting market share, increasing production and profit margins and decreasing costs. Every single member of that company is, either by choice or bound by the construct, is working for that goal. This is why every huge company (and industry) exhibits largely the same behavioral patterns: doing whatever it takes to maximize profits and minimize costs. Greedy, shady, relentless and inhumane, because of the framework these companies are bound by, the goal to maximize profits whatever the cost.

Just because you don't like an alternative doesn't mean it doesn't exist and just because the powers that be won't make it easy for you doesn't mean it's impossible. Like I said, there are always alternatives.

It's not about what I like, far from it. Did you see anything in my post relating to what I personally want, for myself (aside from a conversation)? This is about what's good for everyone. Alternatives, you say. Well, let's see, what alternative does someone living in absolute poverty has? Because that's how the majority of the planet live right now. No matter how much we want to believe it, the way of life we are used to is far from the standard. The majority of the people frequent here have at least some kind of internet connection, but mostly at least broadband. That in itself suggest a certain degree of comfort, for example not having to worry about clean water, food or place to live, every single say. Those things seem like a given for most western and european countries, and most of us doesn't even realize how lucky we are to live here. Sure, this might sound like hypocrisy, because I live in Europe, and while I don't really have a lot, I do have food, clean water and I rent a room in a nice neighborhood in a small town. I don't have any degrees or diplomas, I only finished high-school and dropped out of university. I mostly do odd jobs, web-design, journalism work and whatever comes my way to support myself, since my parents' divorce they don't really give a damn about me, I don't have anyone to help me. What little money I have I spend on my PC, I work on it, I play on it, I watch movies, I communicate, this is only thing of value I have. But even this is far more than what a lot of people have on this planet.

Wanna know what I want? I want a world that doesn't do this to people! A world without oppression, social stratification, poverty and war. I want a humanity that doesn't try to make itself extinct every step of the way. I want a society, a life, that is honest. I want a world where people don't kill each other for scraps of food every day, where 99% the Earth's resources are not controlled by the 1% wealthy elite. Where people respect and help each other, and not cheat, fraud or kill others for their money. Where people on the street are not strangers to each other, but fellow humans, comrades fighting for a single goal together. Where companies are not out to gain profit by threading on the very Earth and people they exploit. Where war does not exist anymore, because people realize, that we are in this together! Fuck...

This world we live in now is unjust, inhumane and it's basically a deathtrap. Why? Why are we so eager to destroy ourselves? Why do we cause pain and suffering to the Earth and each other? Why do we hate ourselves so much? Right now, humanity is on a course for oblivion, everyone can see that, hell, everybody knows that it's not right, but we still do nothing. Nothing. This is madness, it's suicide. Governments do nothing, they just play bureaucracy with each other, desperately trying to fix a system falling to pieces around them, trying to uphold the illusion, that they are in control and everything is alright, but it's a lie, it's not alright, it's fucked! Companies do nothing, hell, they are ones killing us, and for what? Money? Power? Fuck! It's like people don't want to see what's happening, just shoving their heads in the sand, dismissing every single warning sign, fuck, they even defy reality! They try to tell themselves, that it's OK, it's nothing to worry about, cast out people who deviate from the "norm", label people who speak out against our own self-destruction as "tin-foil hat wearing", conspiracy theorist lunatics, who don't want to accept reality. You bet I don't want to accept reality, if it means this shit we live in! Why does anyone want to accept this fucked up suffering we call life on this planet?

You don't like how things work? Change them. Stage protests, start fundraisers, raise awareness of the problem. The people behind the Venus Project certainly don't seem to think there are only two solutions to this dilemma. None of these people seemed to think that the only way to handle one's problems is to roll over and die.

Now, that you brought him up, here is a quote from Ghandi: "You must be the change you want to see in the world."
I'm committed to the values I represent, and I'm committed to change this self-destructing clusterfuck. Raise awareness of the problem? What do you think I'm doing here, telling you (and the rest of the world that reads this) all these things? But very few people are like you, dude, willing to even debate these issues. The big majority of the people don't even want to listen to any of this, they think the future is something that is given or already decided, and they can't do shit about it. Many people simply doesn't care, "I'll be dead, what difference does it make", just living their lives not wanting to do anything with any of this, "I have my own problems, I don't care about society or wars or any other people, leave me alone". A hundred people I talk to about this, there is at most one willing to at least listen to what I have to say, most of them, hearing all this, simply shrugs and walks away. Some, like you, only offer subterfuge, shooting retorts like a minigun, why it can't work/won't work/not feasible and why it's bullshit, all that without giving it much thought or giving one single alternative.

People should not be concerned about why it can't work, but how can we make it work? The alternative is, that everything stays the same, and it's not really an alternative, now is it? If my way is not good enough, or Fresco's way is not good enough, think about ways that will work! I don't claim to have the ultimate solution, neither does Fresco, it's just a system one helluva lot better than we have now. If you have ideas, please, I beg you, share them! That's how we arrive to a new understanding. But not just to treat problems, that's not a solution. Building more prisons, enforcing stricter laws or mobilizing the military won't solve crime. Fundraisers and charity donations won't solve poverty, hunger and suffering. Building bigger and more lethal weapons (for "defense", what else) won't end wars. Why? Because these are not designed to do so! We need solutions, not treatment. And if my proposed solutions are not good in your opinion, well, let's hear your proposal! I'm more than eager to hear your way of solving all these problems, yet you only presented counter-reasons for my plan.

Have you given any thought to how we're going to get there in the first place?

Yes. It will be a long and not entirely pleasant transition period. The people at the The Zeitgeist Movement seem to have a good idea, how to start the change. Raising awareness, organizing forums, lectures, events, making people think about these things. Nothing as radical as protests, riots or open campaign, that would be counter-productive. People see protesters taking to street as a mob with pitchforks and torches, the louder you shout, the more people cover their ears. No, it's a peaceful thing, initiating conversations and debates about it, like I did here, making people thing about these problems or making them aware if the did not know beforehand. Exposing the whole fucking corrupt, oppressive and inhumane system for what it is. Reaching critical mass seems to be goal, collapsing the monetary system, doing away with it for good and all the suffering it caused. This transition thing is not an easy problem to solve, when transitioning to a society so different.

It would be nice to have garbage trucks that drive themselves, but the fact is that we're nowhere close to that kind of technology yet.

That's not true. That DARPA challenge you linked are just a challenge for individual groups and technology firms, divided, they are not too powerful. But take DARPA, that's basically the fucking weapons research division of the US military. Of course we don't have cars that drive on their own, because the 90% of research today is funded in military technology, finding new and improved ways to kill each other. What if we spent all research resources on the globe to help our society instead of trying to destroy it? United we are strong, remember? Seriously, you need to watch Future by Design, a movie that's shows you just how we can improve our lives with technology, technology that is either available right now, was developed in the past, or could be built in a matter of years. As Jaques Fresco put it, there are signs on the road, that says "drive carefully, slippery when wet", instead of putting that sign there, design a road covering that is not slippery when wet. Instead of traffic laws that tell people how to drive, and warning signs and what to do not to crash your car, build technology into the cars and the road, so collisions simply can't happen. Sensors in cars and on the road, that alert you to certain dangers, cars that communicate and avert collisions on their own, etc. Again, instead of trying to treat a problem with rules, laws and regulations, cure the source of it!

It very simple. Technologies like this are not invented or applied, not because there is no need for them or they are not available, but because there is no profit in using them. The car industry would go fucking bankrupt if cars wouldn't crash, break down or age as fast as hell. Things are not designed to last, because people wouldn't buy new stuff then, the industry would go bust. Repair shops, manufacturers, retail chains would be out of business, if you could buy stuff that is top of the line and last virtually for fucking ever. As I said, we have enough food, water and could build enough housing for every fucking human being on the planet right now, but poverty, famine and the "third world" will never get solved, because there is no profit in it. Better yet, there are technologies, that were invented in the past, that could solve some of the problems today, yet these technologies are nowhere to be seen. Why? Big Industry, took them and buried them in their back yard, so no one could find them. Did you know, that there was an Electric Car, that produced no exhaust, was quiet, fast, easily maintainable and even the running cost was in par (or a little lower) than petrol cars? It even got into production, there were cars like this on the streets, the infrastructure, charging stations were under construction, and then *BAM*, it vanished. Without a trace. The car industry destroyed every single one, called back the whole series, destroyed the infrastructure, then dug a nice deep hole, dropped the patents, schematics and everything else associated with the project in, poured concrete over it, and built a nice Humvee factory on top. Why? The Oil industry, Car Industry, Service Industy...etc, of course. The huge corporation today hold patents to technology that could changed the world easily for the better, but they refuse to release them, because if there is no profit in solving a problem, it won't get solved, easy as that. However, there is money in creating problems, if you are the only who has the solution...

Besides that, we still don't know that this would even be more efficient than using human beings.

Are you fucking serious? Machines designed to complete a certain task will be always more efficient than humans. If not, that's an error in design. Machines are stronger, faster and more precise than we are. There is no denying that. Of course, I bet you can bring some convoluted example where this is not true, just to oppose this. I say, not yet. Sure there are technologies right now that are not superior to human capabilities just yet, but with some research and clever design, this can be resolved.

Have you ever seen I, Robot? ... Have you ever played Mass Effect?

If I may quote myself from the previous post: "Well, no, there is no such a thing as murderous computers, just in movies." These are stories, movies, games, they are entertainment, not reality. Like I said, computers and machines do whatever you program them to do, nothing more, nothing less. If a machine does something it shouldn't, it's an error in design/programming, not a sign of some murderous self-awareness. Even huge or complex machines are just a derivative of the simple screwdriver, only more parts. They are tools. If you fear the moral implications of what a machine would do, program them with the correct set of instructions. In I, Robot, the robot could've been programmed to save children first if such dilemma would occur. It's that simple. The main character's anger is misdirected, the robot couldn'tve acted differently, and I don't say "even it wanted to" because robots don't have that luxury. It's really the programmer/designer's fault, that happened. The fact, that it acted on a simple principle of survival odds and didn't take other factors into account, like the human moral notion of a children's life being more valuable, it's an accidental or deliberate oversight or lack of attention to detail on the programmer's part. If you want such a robot to act in a certain way, you program it that way. The simulated "morals" these robots have are only the result of their programming, not because they are self-aware, thinking beings like some movies and games portray them to be.

In the case of the Mass Effect "VI", the system also acted on it's programming, nothing more, nothing less. It was designed in a way to preserve human life, so in case of some danger, it won't let the humans out until that danger is gone, and since the danger did not go away, again, the system acted on the principle of usefulness when deciding which pods to shut down, because that was the best logical course of action in it's programming. If you think the system did something wrong, you can only fault it's programmer. Even in the case of systems designed to learn and, for the lack of a better expression, program themselves, are only using the learning tools provided to them by the programmer/designer. If they learn behaviors that is wrong for some reason, again, it's only a fault in design.

You can say that all you want, but that doesn't make it feasible. You say they will be irrelevant, I say they will always be relevant.

Fair enough. Why?

Bullshit. Plain and simple. People aren't simply products of their upbringing. [...] So don't tell me that we're purely products of our environments. It's bullshit. Just because you're raised a certain way or habituated to certain behavior does not mean that you will replicate or otherwise perpetuate that behavior. People make their own choices.

See? That's why I simply can't go into enough detail or explain things far enough, because no matter how much detail I cover, there are always places you can rip into my reasoning with nitpicking. Did you even try to follow my train of thought, or you simply retorted without thinking it through? *sigh* Here we go:

Of course there are many different factors when forming behavior, from mental illnesses to traumatic experiences, the spectrum is wide, you are absolutely right about that. You are also right about the fact, that no amount of education will make two people think exactly the same way. But exposing people, from a young age, to a certain kind a value system and educating them in a certain direction will have a huge influence, as well as other environmental factors, such as place of living, people they interact with, etc. These kids, in time, will develop their own value system based on these factors. You are right, it's a complicated process, but I think we can agree on the fact, that they only learn from things they are exposed to. Some things influence certain people more than others, that's why there are people who defy the average behavioral system of their place of living. But that behavior could only have developed, if they were exposed to some other kind of behavior system, that influenced them more than what they were exposed to at their place of living. That fact, however, doesn't negate the fact, that most people in a certain place tend to behave in similar ways.

But what we are not exposed to, can't influence us, I think we can agree on that too. If from birth, you are not exposed to crime, violence, war, fraud or any of these negative factors, you most certainly won't become a criminal. One of the pillars of this new education system is to try and limit the exposure to these negative elements at an early age. But since we can't totally nullify exposure, we must put it into context, explain what that means and teach them how to handle these emotions and situations should they arise. Most of the aberrant behavior occurs, when the individual can't process, can't handle a certain situation, either because of some illness or by lack of information, education or explanation. But if you have knowledge of that certain aspect or behavior and learned how handle it the right way, you'll be alright.

According to my friend, he was actually a really nice guy. He wasn't a psychopath or anything--he just let his anger take over and did something horrible and irreversible on impulse.

Did he say why he did it? What was the cause? On another note, he "let his anger take over". That could've been remedied by learning how to manage your anger, understanding and controlling it. Anger is an emotion, not auto-pilot. You are still responsible what you do in anger, and you do have control, even when you are furious. You just need to learn how to extend that control and eventually, learn to control you anger. It takes practice, sure, but it's not impossible. There are even anger-management classes all around. See? Education!

"Good" people do "bad" things every single day. This is an irrefutable reality of the world we live in, not just some by-product of modern society that can be remedied with copious amounts of after school specials.

Yes, you are right, it's sad, but this indeed an irrefutable reality. And no, it can't be remedied by after school specials. The whole system needs to change if we want to stop this tendency, we need to destroy this system a build a completely new one, the right way this time.

My mother grew up in west Philadelphia. [...] She's always believed in me and encouraged me to live up to my potential, whatever that may be.

Okay, I don't want to sound out of place, but if I may say, you turned out alright, as far I know anyway. You are certainly a bright spot in my day, that you are willing to listen and discuss important matters. And that you have your own value system and ideas, and you won't accept my theories at face value. I got pretty accustomed to people either not wanting to listen or just shooting random insults when I tell them their life is fucked up. Some people just nod, not even debating what I say, that's also wrong. Nothing is eternal truth. We need to revise old theories and things we take as facts. To be proven wrong should be celebrated, because it elevates us to a new level of understanding. That's why I like to debate issues instead of just shouting into the void, that accomplishes nothing. And I really thank you for being a partner in this. It's a very stimulating discussion we are having here, at least I'm really happy about it.

Vast, vast, vast, vast, vast oversimplification. Yes, fire is hot and yes, everyone needs food, but not all sociopolitical issues are that simple.

That's why I didn't go into socio-political issues. But if you insist...

How about food? What happens if there's a food shortage and we don't have enough to feed everyone? Who gets to eat, then? Don't tell me that it wouldn't happen, either. I don't care how smart your future computer is, there are still such things as natural disasters. There are still bugs and diseases that kill crops. There are still earthquakes and meteors. What happens if an earthquake takes down the future computer and a resulting tsunami wipes out a decent portion of our food? Not only do we not have enough to feed everyone, but we've got no computer to manage the entire fucking planet.

If there is a shortage, we produce more food. Okay, I know it's, again, vast oversimplification, but still. You are right, our food and water reserves are most vulnerable point in our society, because we can't live without either one. In that regard, it should be most important line of research, the production and the protection of food. There are certain technologies that can supply us with food and are impervious to many environmental hazards, like hydroponic or aeroponic gardens. These can be built virtually anywhere, even underground or under water, safe from most natural disasters. These are also closed ecosystems, so bugs, diseases and anything that can damage the crops can be kept away. It's not even a new concept, it has been theorized as far back as the mid-16th century and being developed ever since. The food and clean water will be stored, so we will have a good amount of surplus in storage, should any shortage occur, that gives us time to come up with a solution to either increase production or find substitutes. As for the global system, ever heard about decentralized networks?

Of course this is not a foul-proof system, but it's as secure as it can be. Real food shortage can arise, without any supply, that is possible, you are right, and my answer is: I don't know.
I don't know what would happen, or what would be best course of action, I never really thought about that, I guess. Rationing is a possibility, or alternative food sources, but I really don't have a complete idea this time. But now that you mention it, I give it some thought, thank you!

Here's another one: what if a new, extremely deadly and contagious disease breaks out, but we don't have the medicine to cure it? Let's call it Spanish Flu 3.0. Let's say we manage to catch it early and isolate the would-be pandemic when it's only spread through the population of, say, a single city. So, we've got these poor, sick people quarantined while we're working on a treatment--that we might not even be able to finish in time--when a hurricane hits. Now, not only are these people dying of disease, but their city is flooded, buildings are ruined, there's even more mass panic and no way to apply aid or evacuate them without risking spreading the contagion.

Okay, I'm going to go at this backwards. First of all, the hurricane. In hurricane-endangered zones, we build hurricane-resistant buildings. Sounds awfully simple, right? (Hurricane < hurricane-resistant) Yet nobody is doing it. An inverted-cone or dome shaped building can withstand a hurricane, because of the aerodynamics of the shape itself, the wind can't pick it up. But nowadays they keep building "cardboard" houses there, of course it's going to get destroyed. Also, emergency power generator for the blackouts, food and water supply, etc. It's not rocket science, it's simple fucking common sense.

As for the epidemic...

What's "best" for humanity would be to let the survivors die. That way, SF3 dies out with them and we don't have to divert any resources to a rescue effort. That's the logical solution. Is it an ethical one, though? Hell no. But your future computer doesn't give a shit about that. It doesn't favor some people over others. It exists to serve the "greater good." It's not going to risk the deaths of 50 million people if we can cut our losses at 1.5.

Again, the central system doesn't decide anything, it monitors and offers suggestions. But even if it were, again, a computer does what you tell it to do, nothing more. If you program it to be only logical, it will decide that way, if you program it to be ethical, it will decide that way. You are still taking cues from movies and stories that portray artificial intelligence or central systems, those are false examples, not real. Try to think outside the box, if I may wedge a pun in there But you are right, what's logical is not always ethical. But, let's see your example, if you are in flooded, ruined city ravaged by a deadly epidemic, there is no cure and absolutely no chance to evacuate. You tried everything, nothing can get in there, simply no way of getting those people out without spreading the virus to other parts of the globe, and it's very virulent, if it gets out, at least 50 million people will die. The only logical option is to let 1.5 million people die to save 50 million. What would you do?

Like I said before, we don't have limitless resources. We don't have the resources or the ability to give every single person on the planet everything they will ever want ever. Not everyone can have a working car. Not everyone can have a brand-new TV. Not everyone can have a computer. Because of this some things have more value than others and people will try to trade to get them.

You are right, our resources are not limitless, and we certainly can't give everyone what they will ever want ever. But we can give them what they need. Air, food, water, shelter, for starters, and we work our way up from there. When everyone has the basics, we can spend resources on other stuff, like things needed for work, research, transportation, education, etc, and then, and only then, come the luxuries. Sure, not everyone will have a brand new TV every time they want a new one, but everything will be built to last for the maximum time technologically possible. That alleviates a major burden and huge resource waste we currently have. If a resource becomes scarce, it will be rationed and alternatives will be investigated and implemented.

The system will provide for everyone equally, and people will share most things with each other. Like, cars will be public domain, not personal possession, but issued on an "as needed" basis. If you need transportation, but there are not enough vehicles at that time to serve everyone, alternatives will be suggested, like the maglev train, that travels at 5000mph, ships, electric bikes, etc. If there are no alternatives at that time, if possible, new ones will be deployed from storage or created. If that's not possible, well, I'm afraid you'll have to wait a little with that trip

Things will be public domain as much as possible, commonly usable by anyone. Wants and needs will be balanced, and served as fully as possible, everyone gets an equal share. The notion of strictly personal possession, for the only sake of possessing something, will be gone, so there will be no basis for trade.

Again, we can't make infinite amounts of everything and even if we could, keeping things for the sake of keeping them is very relevant. People keep photo albums, baby booties, umbilical cords, letters, journals, personal possession of dead loved ones--all sorts of things--because they have value. Even if you can't sell them, some things still have value because of the memories attached to them.

That's an entirely different matter. As I said, privacy will be respected fully, so photo albums, baby bottles, letters, things that people have some kind of personal attachment to is yours, since these things rarely have any usefulness or value for other people, but common sense applies here also, so keeping an ocean liner because you lost your virginity on it, is not feasible


Okay, this so fucking longer than the last post, sorry. On the other hand, I would like to hear your theories, too, on the topic of how to solve these problems, I'm really curious, and I would welcome the input. You helped me clarify a whole fuckload of things, so thank you for that. I hope this discussion can continue

 

[commasplice]

I would like to hear your theories, too, on the topic of how to solve these problems, I'm really curious, and I would welcome the input. You helped me clarify a whole fuckload of things, so thank you for that. I hope this discussion can continue

Actually, I think it's about quittin' time for me. I can't keep this up forever and I've got other things I need to do with my time. Sorry. While we still don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, I'm glad we could talk about all this. At least we can agree on one thing:

To be proven wrong should be celebrated, because it elevates us to a new level of understanding.

Well said.