On May 06 2012 23:42 DeliCiousVP wrote: Offer food and shelter in exchange for the weapons hold peaceful discussions in the squares where everyone can speak out without fear of persecution.
Sounds great. I am honestly willing to buy you a ticked to North Korea to do just that.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Human beings are not angels. Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
Before you even want consider an idea like this you have to eliminate wars and facism. You have to be able to guarrantee a good education and values of respect being taught to the entire world. If you don't do these things some people will take advantage of the flaws in the system and get more than their fair share by using voilence.
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
Dose it also do the dishes? How exactly will this end war and all the religious conflicts? enlighten us.
Please, don't burst his bubble. ^_^
This is one of those ideas which sounds good when leaving out the details.
How many would work full time if everything was free? How many would spend 5 years on an education if everything was free? How many would buy a small TV if they could get a whole cinema for free? How many would cook food if they could order it for free? ...
There is something fundamentally wrong about the theory in that video. The assumption that technology progresses if there is no reward for it. It's a hassle to think of something new, developing it, testing it and then mass producing it by high standards and the only reason we do that today is because we get a reward for it.
In a world without rewards, where everything is supposedly available to everyone, there is no more motivation to do a hassle. Most people who are too lazy to work there, will not work at all while they may have enormous potential to create a new technology.
This is why Communism failed and we are now stuck with Capitalism (and honestly, I hate both, there is just no alternative).
Last edit: 2012-05-07 00:59:58
Comparing BW with SCII is like comparing a beautiful three-master sailing ship with a modern battlecruiser. Both are beautiful in their own way, both perform the same task, but they are worlds apart in how they are built and how they are steered.
1Eris1 United States. May 07 2012 01:02. Posts 5797
On May 07 2012 00:58 diggurd wrote: to those believe (yeah i mean like religiously believe it) that money is the only incentive:
DeliCiousVP im with you my sweet brother.
im norwegian, we're almost there guys. i get everything for free, and i still want to do my share for the world. imagine that!?
Actually the incentive is pleasures/property/etc, money is merely a path to acquiring these pleasures, which is why we strive after it.
Anyways I'm still waiting on you VP to explain how you're going to give me the extravagant lifestyle I want. Because you know, if I don't have a job, I'm going to get bored easily, and I'm going to need to fill that hole with trips to the mariana trench and skydives over mt.everest
Last edit: 2012-05-07 01:02:30
Known Aliases: Tyragon, Valeric ~MSL Forever, SKT is truly the Superior KT!
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything.
[citation needed]
It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much?
Pricing isn't just an arbitrary number. It's an aggregation of information relating to supply and demand.
Going back to incentives, how do you get people to do the jobs that suck? Or are hard to do? Sure, some will naturally like doing them but to get enough people to do it you need an incentive. In a market economy that's higher pay. In communism that's taken care of by secret police and the military.
Or you have magic robots do it.
If you can motivate people to go down into sewers for piss and shit pay, i dont see any problem motivating people to do the job when they actually receive something thats 100x times better.
Studies will be made to find out what jobs are the least giving and they will automated quickly and alot of job will simply dissapear, Like phone salesmen, lawyers, polticians, bankers
Anyone having the idea that people will be sent out to do meaninless dull tasks like "working in the field" has sorely missunderstood its about making sure people dont have to waste their time doing dull tasks thats the point.
the western world is turning into well fare stats and a new conciousness is growing the public is becoming well educated to what goes on in the higher echellions of power in the first time since ever. This is thanks to the internet.
Captilism>Socialistic Wellfare state>RBE Value shift: social concern becomes personal concern.
On May 07 2012 00:58 diggurd wrote: im norwegian, we're almost there guys. i get everything for free, and i still want to do my share for the world. imagine that!?
You get "everything for free" because Norway is a small country with a lot of oil.
Last edit: 2012-05-07 01:08:24
fuck all those elitists brb watching streams of elite players.
On May 07 2012 00:58 diggurd wrote: to those believe (yeah i mean like religiously believe it) that money is the only incentive:
DeliCiousVP im with you my sweet brother.
im norwegian, we're almost there guys. i get everything for free, and i still want to do my share for the world. imagine that!?
Capitalism and free market economies are NOT built on the belief that money is the ONLY incentive. It's built on the idea that people prefer more money to less.
And it works.
And it still works when it comes to high technology.
There are plenty of really smart people working on new technology at MIT and Harvard. But it's not enough. So as new technologies are discovered new companies are set up to give the smart people the resources they need and a huge financial incentive to finish their research and turn it into something useful to the market.
Yes, in communist Russia Tetris was invented. Yet it's not where the video game industry grew and prospered.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Human beings are not angels. Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
Before you even want consider an idea like this you have to eliminate wars and facism. You have to be able to guarrantee a good education and values of respect being taught to the entire world. If you don't do these things some people will take advantage of the flaws in the system and get more than their fair share by using voilence.
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
Dose it also do the dishes? How exactly will this end war and all the religious conflicts? enlighten us.
Please, don't burst his bubble. ^_^
This is one of those ideas which sounds good when leaving out the details.
How many would work full time if everything was free? How many would spend 5 years on an education if everything was free? How many would buy a small TV if they could get a whole cinema for free? How many would cook food if they could order it for free? ...
1. You work with what you want maybe there would be some communal project that they would want you to clock 2-6 hours a week on. 2. Education will morph and change look to the Khan academy for example. our education infrastructure is very inefficent. More good for social education then factual. 3. You could go watch your movies in cinemas for free you might not get your own tho. 4. Preparing your own food is both inefficent and wasteful structure would motivate you to eat out rather then make your own food. Q: who would make the food? A: someone who wants to and he/She/them could take advantage of machinery aswel so the process dont become to long and dull.
On May 07 2012 00:58 diggurd wrote: to those believe (yeah i mean like religiously believe it) that money is the only incentive:
DeliCiousVP im with you my sweet brother.
im norwegian, we're almost there guys. i get everything for free, and i still want to do my share for the world. imagine that!?
Actually the incentive is pleasures/property/etc, money is merely a path to acquiring these pleasures, which is why we strive after it.
Anyways I'm still waiting on you VP to explain how you're going to give me the extravagant lifestyle I want. Because you know, if I don't have a job, I'm going to get bored easily, and I'm going to need to fill that hole with trips to the mariana trench and skydives over mt.everest
yeah but that point is really important - and alot of people in this thread would not go along with that... because you can have pleasure and accomplishments without even knowing what money is.. and if you watch the entire video, you will notice that money will in some cases hinder productivity etc.
listen.. if you want everything you can think of (in this imaginary world) - everybody else can have it too, right? ok.. so now we have a problem, we probably dont have enough resources on this planet to do that..
you still want it? ok.. i guess we have to make/find new planets.. thats going to take a while, but if thats what you want - we will do our best..
what is that? you were just making a point, you dont really want all that stuff? youll take whatever we can give you at this time?
O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ my thx to tl staff, translators and small vod boys O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ ..... <3 [NC]..YellOw <3 FlaSh
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything.
[citation needed]
It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much?
The important bit is that people will not, in fact, sit on their asses all day and will actually work. So I'm glad we at least agree on that.
As for the functionality of the system, we actually possess the means and technology to store and organize information. So communicating information on what is needed, and how much, is hardly an issue. As for the farmer, since he's technically not selling anything or competing on a market, he has no reason to even care which specific crops he grows. You can just have an algorithm decide which crops and how much are being grown where to meet the overall needs of the population in the most rational and efficient way (based on demand, logistics, etc).
People are then effectively relieved of stress and risk of having to compete on the market, potential job/profit losses due to bad business decisions (sometimes not even their own), they still get compensated for the work they do, plus they still have political rights and thus a way to influence and change things they disagree with.
Actual economy, in its essential form, is really simple. There are resources, and there are people who need to consume resources in order to live at a certain standard. There is always a mathematically optimal way to divide and distribute these resources so that as many people are as content as rationally possible. Again, you can write a program that does it better.
Ultimately, these debates are not economic or technology debates, they are ethical debates. Do you want a global society that primarily respects human life, or one that primarily exploits it?
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything.
[citation needed]
It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much?
Pricing isn't just an arbitrary number. It's an aggregation of information relating to supply and demand.
Going back to incentives, how do you get people to do the jobs that suck? Or are hard to do? Sure, some will naturally like doing them but to get enough people to do it you need an incentive. In a market economy that's higher pay. In communism that's taken care of by secret police and the military.
Or you have magic robots do it.
If you can motivate people to go down into sewers for piss and shit pay, i dont see any problem motivating people to do the job when they actually receive something thats 100x times better.
Studies will be made to find out what jobs are the least giving and they will automated quickly and alot of job will simply dissapear, Like phone salesmen, lawyers, polticians, bankers
Anyone having the idea that people will be sent out to do meaninless dull tasks like "working in the field" has sorely missunderstood its about making sure people dont have to waste their time doing dull tasks thats the point.
the western world is turning into well fare stats and a new conciousness is growing the public is becoming well educated to what goes on in the higher echellions of power in the first time since ever. This is thanks to the internet.
Captilism>Socialistic Wellfare state>RBE Value shift: social concern becomes personal concern.
They get paid well in NYC. But regardless...
If you automate jobs based on what is 'least giving' then there will be fewer resources to go around for other things. You will be making people poorer. Basically the "Great Leap Forward" all over again where 30 million people died.
On May 07 2012 00:58 diggurd wrote: to those believe (yeah i mean like religiously believe it) that money is the only incentive:
DeliCiousVP im with you my sweet brother.
im norwegian, we're almost there guys. i get everything for free, and i still want to do my share for the world. imagine that!?
Actually the incentive is pleasures/property/etc, money is merely a path to acquiring these pleasures, which is why we strive after it.
Anyways I'm still waiting on you VP to explain how you're going to give me the extravagant lifestyle I want. Because you know, if I don't have a job, I'm going to get bored easily, and I'm going to need to fill that hole with trips to the mariana trench and skydives over mt.everest
yeah but that point is really important - and alot of people in this thread would not go along with that... because you can have pleasure and accomplishments without even knowing what money is.. and if you watch the entire video, you will notice that money will in some cases hinder productivity etc.
listen.. if you want everything you can think of (in this imaginary world) - everybody else can have it too, right? ok.. so now we have a problem, we probably dont have enough resources on this planet to do that..
you still want it? ok.. i guess we have to make/find new planets.. thats going to take a while, but if thats what you want - we will do our best..
what is that? you were just making a point, you dont really want all that stuff? youll take whatever we can give you at this time?
Actually, there are plenty of people who will not take "whatever you can give them at this time." Personally I don't think I would start a revolution unless what you were giving me was really bad, but some people would, and this is exactly why communism has failed time and time again. Basically everyone was given X, but Stalin/Mao/whoever wanted 10x, so they destroyed the society in the process.
I agree you do not need money to have pleasure, you need certain items/events/etc to have pleasure. But if such things are limitied, it is almost guranteed that some people will not get the pleasure they want, and some of them will not stand for it. This is why capitalism is better, because it allows people to work towards what they want. Most of them will not get everything they want, but they will have the oppurtunity and they will still keep at it, and thus keep contributing to society as a whole until they do.
Known Aliases: Tyragon, Valeric ~MSL Forever, SKT is truly the Superior KT!
yeah we have the oil, thats no secret. does that wiki page say how much of those money we use? if you think scandinavia is what it is because of oil, i think you need to read some more about it..
what about sweden, finland, denmark? they are just the same as us, and they dont have nearly that much oil..
O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ my thx to tl staff, translators and small vod boys O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ O~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ ..... <3 [NC]..YellOw <3 FlaSh
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Human beings are not angels. Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
Before you even want consider an idea like this you have to eliminate wars and facism. You have to be able to guarrantee a good education and values of respect being taught to the entire world. If you don't do these things some people will take advantage of the flaws in the system and get more than their fair share by using voilence.
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
Dose it also do the dishes? How exactly will this end war and all the religious conflicts? enlighten us.
Please, don't burst his bubble. ^_^
This is one of those ideas which sounds good when leaving out the details.
How many would work full time if everything was free? How many would spend 5 years on an education if everything was free? How many would buy a small TV if they could get a whole cinema for free? How many would cook food if they could order it for free? ...
1. You work with what you want maybe there would be some communal project that they would want you to clock 2-6 hours a week on. 2. Education will morph and change look to the Khan academy for example. our education infrastructure is very inefficent. More good for social education then factual. 3. You could go watch your movies in cinemas for free you might not get your own tho. 4. Preparing your own food is both inefficent and wasteful structure would motivate you to eat out rather then make your own food. Q: who would make the food? A: someone who wants to and he/She/them could take advantage of machinery aswel so the process dont become to long and dull.
You got a lot of good points but there are still problems with chores which no one or very few want to do do.
I'm certain we easily could find people who want to do the stimulating jobs which require some form of creativity. What about the chores which no one likes? I'm sure most work places got a few of those.
I'm working as an IT consultant and I do love my job and would happily continue working even if everything became free. But I wouldn't work my 40+h I currently work, I would probably work half as much. I would want to develop new systems and don't work as much with bug fixing or support of old systems.
On May 07 2012 01:22 diggurd wrote: yeah we have the oil, thats no secret. does that wiki page say how much of those money we use? if you think scandinavia is what it is because of oil, i think you need to read some more about it..
what about sweden, finland, denmark? they are just the same as us, and they dont have nearly that much oil..
What the hell are you talking about.
Only thing you get "free" is some money to buy food. And it's not free when rest of the working people who aren't lazy scums are paying for it. There is a reason why racism is increasing in Finland when immigration is increasing, and it's getting harder and harder to support peoples for even their food.
Currently for example, the elderly get barely 200€ per month to survive. And most young people who are successing, are moving away, because paying over 50% of your incomes as taxes isn't tempting for them. Finland has seen what happened in Soviet Union, and how this magical free for all is doing so well and developing great nation in Cuba for example.
If this would happen, the world would go back in stage of dark mid ages from 14th century.
On May 07 2012 01:22 diggurd wrote: yeah we have the oil, thats no secret. does that wiki page say how much of those money we use? if you think scandinavia is what it is because of oil, i think you need to read some more about it..
what about sweden, finland, denmark? they are just the same as us, and they dont have nearly that much oil..
What the hell are you talking about.
Only thing you get "free" is some money to buy food. And it's not free when rest of the working people who aren't lazy scums are paying for it. There is a reason why racism is increasing in Finland when immigration is increasing, and it's getting harder and harder to support peoples for even their food.
Currently for example, the elderly get barely 200€ per month to survive. And most young people who are successing, are moving away, because paying over 50% of your incomes as taxes isn't tempting for them. Finland has seen what happened in Soviet Union, and how this magical free for all is doing so well and developing great nation in Cuba for example.
If this would happen, the world would go back in stage of dark mid ages from 14th century.
Wait, one guy is like "everything is free in Norway" and you're talking about "surviving". Which is it? :D
Store
Preparing your own food is both inefficent and wasteful structure would motivate you to eat out rather then make your own food. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Norwar_Exports_Tree_Map_%282009%29.pdf/page1-768px-Norwar_Exports_Tree_Map_%282009%29.pdf.jpg)
