Really, I think the best way to do this, if people think we have the technology available today, would be to get a large enough group together (Like, several hundred or even thousand people) and run that model for a year. The flaw I see in this though is that the people who are willing to move to such a location would be people who were passionate about the idea, which means that if it worked, the data would still be inconclusive. Would be a good first test though: If they couldn't make it work, nobody could. If they did make it work, it might inspire some more general interest and funding for more testing.
<@Wikt> so you are one of those nega-fans <@Wikt> that hates the company that makes a game and everything they stand for <@Wikt> but still plays the game <@Wikt> (like roughly 30% of blizzard's player base, maybe much more...)
Toasterbaked United States. May 27 2012 09:19. Posts 153
A video link doesn't answer my questions. Please, as I've said earlier, take the facts out of the video that you wish to present and write them down in your post.
It seems that you are avoiding my questions because you have no answer to them...
What specific question is that? i can micromanage perhaps but sometimes you need a certain base knowledge to understand certain parts if you lack context and refrences some infromation is useless because you cant structure it.
Open up the spoilers and see... I'll repeat them for you anyway. The following questions regarding the practicality of RBE are extremely clear-cut and do not need "base knowledge" to understand.
How will you fully automaticise society in the next few years?
What will happen when there is a lack of people that do a critical job to the function of society? (such as looking over and maintaining robots)
Remember that nothing about the RBE can be applied if it cannot work
Tacky photos and random quotes that have nothing directly to do with the argument but let you hug yourself and convinve your self your right? Im sold! Where do a sing up?... Im still wating for you to compare yourself with people who said the earth is round and orbits the sun well the rest of us claim its lies.
How will you fully automaticise society in the next few years?
I dont know how long it will take to automate all functions in society to an acceptable RBE level. Our society is already very automated today depending on what you consider automated.
For example is a man driving a tractor automated? Because its not close to manual labour. This is a question for the enginners i can only offer rough estimates. The faster this knowledge/values spread the faster we can get to work and with 3D modeling we can construct advanced constructs in hours/days.
What will happen when there is a lack of people that do a critical job to the function of society? (such as looking over and maintaining robots)
As we transition we shorten the work day, We will also prioritize boring/unattractive jobs for automation. With the values as Social concern as personal concern people will flood for a clear way to contribute. i dont see this as a problem what so ever. The opposite of this is what i would worry more about.
Tacky photos and random quotes that have nothing directly to do with the argument but let you hug yourself and convinve your self your right? Im sold! Where do a sing up?.
If RBE is viable the The Venus Project should just prove it works. They could just take existing supply chain simulation software, adapt it for use in a RBE (no prices, access vs ownership) and let the results speak for themselves. Instead of debating opinions we could be talking about case studies and simulation results.
Instead their phases 1 & 2 are creating films. It's not until phase 3 that they plan on testing anything. Furthermore, their testing involves building a city and a theme park. This is illogical - why not prove something works in a simulation before wasting resources on films, cities and theme parks?
Honestly, the whole thing just seems like an excuse for Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows to play around with their own personal architectural and philosophical fantasies.
Honestly, the whole thing just seems like an excuse for Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows to play around with their own personal architectural and philosophical fantasies
Hah! I dont think they would mind but it dont changes the facts that their right. And look up the studies/technology represented in the source material for the zeitgeist movement. Nothing is considered valid if it cant be backed up thats the beauty of it.
nstead their phases 1 & 2 are creating films. It's not until phase 3 that they plan on testing anything
Specify exacly what isent tested when the RBE builts on the scientific method which is it wont be implemented unless it is tested and proven succesful.
And if you wanna refer to all the systems and technologies working at once thats not realy fair is it we just reached this point in our evolution. and i dont see why it wouldent work better then the crap we have today.
Honestly, the whole thing just seems like an excuse for Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadows to play around with their own personal architectural and philosophical fantasies
Hah! I dont think they would mind but it dont changes the facts that their right. And look up the studies/technology represented in the source material for the zeitgeist movement. Nothing is considered valid if it cant be backed up thats the beauty of it.
nstead their phases 1 & 2 are creating films. It's not until phase 3 that they plan on testing anything
Specify exacly what isent tested when the RBE builts on the scientific method which is it wont be implemented unless it is tested and proven succesful.
And if you wanna refer to all the systems and technologies working at once thats not realy fair is it we just reached this point in our evolution. and i dont see why it wouldent work better then the crap we have today.
Well you can't just say "if it doesn't work we won't use it" because that's exactly what we have today. They are actively advocating that things should change - but they haven't show that it can work. Therefore, they aren't being honest when they say they use the scientific method - because so far they've ignored it!
And no, they don't have to prove that every idea works together. Just take one idea at a time and show that it works.
For example: show that access vs ownership would work through simulation modeling. Show how many fewer cars we would need - even during peak 'rush hour' demand - and show the cost savings that would be reached through needing fewer cars vs the added cost of managing the fleet of cars.
Or model how supply and demand could be balanced for a single resource (ex. corn) throughout the supply chain absent a price system.
If it really works it should be easy, no? Why isn't anyone doing this? I haven't seen anything from either Zeitgeist or the Venus Project that does any of this. How come?
Edit: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf The Zeitgeist companion guide, in all it's 220 page glory, does not contain any studies / technologies that demonstrate that any of their individual ideas work (as far as I can tell). So I'm not sure what 'source material' you are referring to. Please direct me to it.
Last edit: 2012-05-27 10:30:43
AdrianHealey Belgium. May 27 2012 18:21. Posts 480
That is a very misleading wikipedia page. But even there it hints that it is not the case that there is just 'one' method we can copy/paste into everything.
Adam smith is an intressting case the father of modern economics, the invisible hand of supply and demand and the contribution to society by the wealthiest. Adam smith was wrong and he realised it aswel as he saw the widespread corruption and povery spreading in Scotland. The wealthiest becoming wealthiest and the poor becoming poorer.
Can you proof to me that Adam Smith 'realized' he was wrong? Furthermore; Adam Smith his focus was not on 'the contribution to society by the wealthiest'. If anything; Adam Smith feared the wealthiest (for modern public choice reasons).
Do you think he is wrong with his 'invisible hand' metaphor? Why?
Adam smith the father of capitalism was wrong and he regreted what he wrote. Try finding that in your econ101.
Proof it, please. (I am philosophy student, specialized in the Scottisch Enlightment, btw.)
Last edit: 2012-05-27 18:21:51
I love.
AdrianHealey Belgium. May 27 2012 18:25. Posts 480
Step1:Social reforms/regulation of the markets/Valueshifts/charity organizations provided with subsities Step2: Create abundance for the nessceties of life without a pricetag. Start placing the nesscery infrastructure to exit the monetary system. Step3: The monetary system is now 100% obsolete, and values have shifted from ownership to access, social concern is personal concern.
Wait, wut? :D
Lol.
'Start placing the necessary infrastructure to exit the monetary system'.
Oke, here is the rub:
Can you explain to me the role money has in an advanced economy? Can you then explain to me what will replace money to fullfill this role?
Morphine Addict - "Urgghhh, I'm getting pains in my wrist again, could you hook me up with some morphine". AI Computer - "Why certainly, your symptoms do indicate a need for morphine"
^ That's just an example of how sophisticated the AI would have to be, and no, we don't have the technology to do any free world charter.
The world is filled with greed, as soon as you take away the need for money, it will come down to distribution, and when the need for distribution needs to be quantified, greed kicks in.
Our society will no longer move forward, we will be stuck in the "digital age" for pretty much ever. People would not strive to achieve anything because the only thing that entices people is money. Sure you might get a geek here and there who might create something, but the real advances in technology generally comes through competition in the market place, and there will be no competition when you take the market factor out.
I don't believe a free world charter will ever become available... however, I do believe some time in the future, perhaps automation will get to the point where we can offer "free" services to the public and obliterate things like the pension and welfare payments just because people will have access to cheap food and a cheap place to live in.
Derp
Toasterbaked United States. May 27 2012 21:36. Posts 153
How will you fully automaticise society in the next few years?
I dont know how long it will take to automate all functions in society to an acceptable RBE level. Our society is already very automated today depending on what you consider automated.
For example is a man driving a tractor automated? Because its not close to manual labour. This is a question for the enginners i can only offer rough estimates. The faster this knowledge/values spread the faster we can get to work and with 3D modeling we can construct advanced constructs in hours/days.
What will happen when there is a lack of people that do a critical job to the function of society? (such as looking over and maintaining robots)
As we transition we shorten the work day, We will also prioritize boring/unattractive jobs for automation. With the values as Social concern as personal concern people will flood for a clear way to contribute. i dont see this as a problem what so ever. The opposite of this is what i would worry more about.
Tacky photos and random quotes that have nothing directly to do with the argument but let you hug yourself and convinve your self your right? Im sold! Where do a sing up?.
Im still wating for you to compare yourself with people who said the earth is round and orbits the sun well the rest of us claim its lies.
The places today where automatons aren't already used is because it takes more resources and labor to create and run the robots than to build the robots themselves. If house-building robots were cheap, effective to manufacture, and easy to produce in millions, we would have all of our houses built by robots. If the automatons don't exist today, they probably won't exist in the RBE.
If you do not have a good understanding of how robots will transition, then the reliability of automatons to replace human labor is certainly a weak spot in the RBE's practicality because you do not know how quickly the society can transition into total automatization.
I've already discussed the second point with you. You've agreed with me that the society cannot function on total automatization, because it is impossible to do today. (page 67-68) There will be a gap between a job people may not want and the robots cannot fill it (for example, lawyers: very few people get into the profession because they enjoy the work, yet it will be difficult for robots to fill the job). Remember: people must LOVE the job for them to volunteer for it every day.
This is the quote I was talking about:
For example, has there been a power plant that cam run for forever with robots that provide repair to EVERY SINGLE CORNER of the plant, fixes its errors and malfunctions by itself, knowing how to respond in every single possible natural occurrence, and have artificial intelligence?
Driving trucks is indeed manual labor. You're not sitting in your office doing paperwork- you're on the field, driving.
You've answered my first question- thank you.
I want to get an answer to my second question regarding the point I made above.
What will happen when there is a lack of people that do a critical job to the function of society? (such as looking over and maintaining robots)
Last edit: 2012-05-27 22:25:23
Aka lossmule.sky in east
Toasterbaked United States. May 27 2012 21:52. Posts 153
On May 27 2012 21:12 blug wrote: Morphine Addict - "Urgghhh, I'm getting pains in my wrist again, could you hook me up with some morphine". AI Computer - "Why certainly, your symptoms do indicate a need for morphine"
^ That's just an example of how sophisticated the AI would have to be, and no, we don't have the technology to do any free world charter.
The world is filled with greed, as soon as you take away the need for money, it will come down to distribution, and when the need for distribution needs to be quantified, greed kicks in.
Our society will no longer move forward, we will be stuck in the "digital age" for pretty much ever. People would not strive to achieve anything because the only thing that entices people is money. Sure you might get a geek here and there who might create something, but the real advances in technology generally comes through competition in the market place, and there will be no competition when you take the market factor out.
I don't believe a free world charter will ever become available... however, I do believe some time in the future, perhaps automation will get to the point where we can offer "free" services to the public and obliterate things like the pension and welfare payments just because people will have access to cheap food and a cheap place to live in.
I agree. Guess #1 on VP's reponse: *post zeitgeist video* *post random picture*
Guess #2 on VP's response: No no no! You don't understand human nature! People love to work for fun! *posts links saying that Steve Jobs loved his work, so 6 billion others who don't work as a CEO as a massive electronics company must love to work*
Guess #3 on VP's reponse: *ignored because you don't have the base knowledge to understand*
Can you proof to me that Adam Smith 'realized' he was wrong? Furthermore; Adam Smith his focus was not on 'the contribution to society by the wealthiest'. If anything; Adam Smith feared the wealthiest (for modern public choice reasons).
Do you think he is wrong with his 'invisible hand' metaphor? Why?
Adam smith admired the wealthiest to begin with as he wrote his thesis on "perfect liberty". As time went by he started having his doubt as the wealth gap kept increasing. And even tho scotland was becoming richer due to the Glasgow merchants he didnt see this reflected in the general population as he predicted instead the merchants were building great houses for themself.
But it is easier to understand all of this if you understand what shapes human behaviour.
That there is an inviisble hand that control supply and demand and brings equalibrium is absurd. There are factors none of them invisble or natural.
I will plug the episode again but TL gets angry when i have to constantly repeat stuff so Follow the parts and make your own opinion.
Can you proof to me that Adam Smith 'realized' he was wrong? Furthermore; Adam Smith his focus was not on 'the contribution to society by the wealthiest'. If anything; Adam Smith feared the wealthiest (for modern public choice reasons).
Do you think he is wrong with his 'invisible hand' metaphor? Why?
Adam smith admired the wealthiest to begin with as he wrote his thesis on "perfect liberty". As time went by he started having his doubt as the wealth gap kept increasing. And even tho scotland was becoming richer due to the Glasgow merchants he didnt see this reflected in the general population as he predicted instead the merchants were building great houses for themself.
But it is easier to understand all of this if you understand what shapes human behaviour.
That there is an inviisble hand that control supply and demand and brings equalibrium is absurd. There are factors none of them invisble or natural.
I will plug the episode again but TL gets angry when i have to constantly repeat stuff so Follow the parts and make your own opinion.
I watched it and what you say is in it is not really in it.
1) England at the time relied on colonialism and mercantilism to run its economy. You cannot compare this to modern capitalism and free trade.
2) 'Invisible hand' is a metaphor for many factors aggregating together independently and regardless of if they are aware of each other or not. No one thinks there is a ghost controlling things.
3) The general population of Glasgow has seen exponential increases in their purchasing power, from the poorest to the richest, regardless of how inequitable the division of that income has been.
4) Adam Smith is not all that is modern economic theory. Ludwig von Mises, who wrote extensively on why communism doesn't work, is pretty important to the discussion too.
smokeyhoodoo United States. May 27 2012 23:07. Posts 1021
Hey DeliCiousVP, can you please email your buddy Jacque Fresco and let him know about this new invention called the "computer" for us? See with this gizmo called a "computer" we can do things like simulation, which could be used to prove that RBE is in any way workable, if one was so inclined.
Or they could just keep on making films and theme parks. Whatever, one is just as rational as the other I'm sure.
On May 28 2012 00:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Hey look guys - a picture of a giant robot.
Clearly this is both possible to make (the picture proves it) and awesome. So why haven't we made them in real life?
The money system.
BOOM
One shouldent feed you but the admins obviously enjoy you because you double and triple post without warning. in any case here is something you can debunk and eat in the meantime
This is 4 years ago when Peter jospeh still had fairly high hopes for open conversation between two individuals. Now we know better tho that actually discussing something in a calm and informative way, Is a trait ihard to find in the masses.
![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/552873_446090872085826_196601040368145_1603776_1514736138_n.jpg)
smokeyhoodoo United States. May 27 2012 23:07. Posts 1021![[image loading]](http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/optimus_prime.jpg)
