@esa

I'll take that as a lazy one-word answer to a very detailed and extensively though-out question.

Your answer to the question "Why can't we..." being "comunism...", and the answer to the question "how can we..." also being "comunism...".

This is, of course, a contradiction...

Why can't we have robotic labour as the foundation for the following? Because such a level of robotics capable of doing all the work for us do not exist? Kinda missed the obvious there didn't you. Why don't we have it? It doesn't exist.

As for a resource based economy: Would you let your employer pay you with plastic? Do you think you should be able to pay for your groceries with iron or zinc? Yeah that's a brilliant idea. Why can't we do it!?

A more decentralized government would be great (no sarcasm). Unfortunately politicians chase power and collect it. And no one is aware or cares enough to ever fight this trend.

As for "An apolitical, completely independent, international, non-profit NGO responsible by a detailed constitution for providing basic resources necessary for ensuring the opportunity for survival and self-actualization of all people," I have  to wonder how it would be completely independent when it would be payed for with a gigantic tax rate. How would you ensure that everyone your nanny-NGO provided for was contributing to the system to the best of their ability? The obvious reason why not is who is going to pay for it? I don't have that kind of money. Neither do you.

OGLUs are expensive. Again, who's going to pay for them? People don't work for free. Or for coffee beans, or most any other resource.

...about as extensively thought-out as herpes.

I'll defer to V. Kemp for now about the other stuff, but I just want to comment on two primary issues:

First, self-actualization: Are you serious?  You haven't explained this in any way.  It sounds like you just said "we should achieve self-actualization" without trying to answer the question of HOW or even answer what self-actualization is.

Second, on the economy:

Okay, that's it.

Xeno, the resource-based economy is a completely ridiculous idea when you consider future technology development.  Why?

http://crnano.org/

It's called a personal nanofactory, and businesses are already working to develop it (and possibly some nations, but we wouldn't know about that, although I have read some stuff about China trying to develop this).  In short, imagine a machine the size of a microwave in which you input some material (garbage, dirt, etc.), and the machine will rearrange the atoms to create whatever good you need (assuming rare atoms aren't required).

Before you question whether I'm an utter nutjob, think of this: nature does this normally.  The rearranging of carbon dioxide to oxygen?  The breakdown of food (I'm not talking about digestion.  I'm talking about breaking down the atoms themselves into the energy required for cells).

Now, I bring this up for a number of reasons.

First, for your society to exist, you require artificial intelligence to exist, or at the very least, advanced computer technology.  However, you can't achieve that without reaching advanced nanotechnology (the same technology that develops the personal nanofactory) because the hardware required for the computer needs to get smaller and smaller.  The only way to create software at that size is to create the small tools required to manipulate atoms (think of an atom as a screw.  A screw is pretty hard to manipulate unless you have the right screwdriver.  Creating advanced computing, therefore, requires, as a prerequisite of humans developing advanced nanotechnology).

Second, it makes raw materials valueless.  Think about it: Assume you want to get a computer.  You could either go to a store to buy one, or go outside, shovel some dirt into your personal nanofactory, and request a computer from your nanofactory.  Suddenly, rare materials mined and sold are just as valuable as your garbage.

Third, this removes the need for governing authorities.  Imagine having a little box that recycles all your garbage into the goods you need, including food.  By the way, this box is also solar-powered.  At that point, why would you depend on any particular outsider?  The interdependence required in such a society would be removed, leaving autonomous individuals.

Now, there is one exception: Society would depend on those people who design products for use in the personal nanofactory.  However, think about the internet: While large authorities exist who we have a dependence upon, there are also small developers who create programs for free, either for notoriety or just to piss off the big guys.  There's so many authorities in the technology field that no single authority can garner a monopoly.

"Resource-based" economies are already known as barter economies. There is nothing inherently wrong with barter economies until you try to undertake large-scale transactions. Moreover, the calculation of profit-and-loss is extremely difficult when you have to account in units of raw materials, rather than reduce everything to a single, monetary value. If a loaf of bread costs $2.00, and a gallon of milk $1.50, then it is that much easier to calculate a trade of bread loaves and milk, relative to dollars or yen or euros. The value of trade, however, is still a subjective measure of each traders' desire for the items exchanged. This is why money is a different commodity than others, because it is used not just as a unit of account, but a medium of exchange. It is never held solely for being money, but for what it can /buy/. Money is infinitely divisible, unlike a tractor or livestock or a similar item you might trade with under a barter economy. In other words, John the Farmer can't divide up his tractor into several parts to exchange for a variety of resources he might need, but the sale of his tractor in dollars allows him to exchange different amounts for different things.

This is basic stuff and I can't believe anybody would question the necessity of money as a medium of exchange.

We have a resource-based economy. We trade currency for resources (ie, goods and services) we desire.

I think you mixed up "resource-based economy" and "communism." Check out your local library for clarification.

@Zarf

Nano-technology is a form of robotics.  Nano-tech robotics would provide labor for manufacturing for household items as you mentioned, and Macro-tech robotics could provide labor for tasks such as mining and construction.

Using robotics technology both nano and macro would free humans to basically do whatever they want all day long, making all costs associated with the availability of energy to power the robotics and the human technical-knowledge support to maintain the robotics.  As the available of energy is basically unlimited (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, geothermal, etc.)  and as it would take very small amount of human labor to provide technical-knowledge support, most people could basically live day-today without having to work at all, robots both macro / nano providing for all their survival needs.

Humans would have 24hour - 7 days a week to pursue their self-actualization goals, whatever and however they may be.

No one is qualified to determine or say what another's self-actualization goals are or how they could be accomplished.  This is can only be determined by the individual in question.

@others

As per how the resource-based economy would work on a day to day basis:  with no need for one to sell his or her labor anymore, there simply wouldn't be any need for money.  There would have to be a resource-based economy.

As per whether or not the level of technology is currently available to establish a robot-based labor force:  Look at how cars, computers, and other things are manufactured today.  We are clearly heading down the road to an age where robotics (nano and macro) could, potentially, do all tasks necessary for providing for the basic needs for each and every human on the planet for a minuscule financial cost.

@Skoe

They wouldn't need to trade cows in such an economy.

get everyone addicted to drugs, then we can use drugs as a currency!

Digital media is a unique commodity insofar as scarcity does not apply. It can be infinitely copied with each and every subsequent copy a perfect replica of the original, and infinitely distributed. However, certain other things, such as bandwith and storage space, still cost something in terms of setting them up or with per-usage agreements. There are still physical limits on technologies that are seemingly limitless in their potential.

1: Nobody qualified to determine self-actualization goals?  Yeah, that was my point.  It means your NGO is inherently bad.

It frees people to have the time to pursue their self-actualization regardless of the means by which they might try to attain it.  Without the time to pursue it, and if for some it IS ONLY with leisure time that they CAN attain their self-actualization goals, having an NGO providing everyone's basic needs would necessary for them.

Perhaps it is one's self-actualization goals to make vast populations of people work 20 hours a day 7 days a week (only to be paid enough to barely have their basic needs fulfilled) and make billions in profits off their labor.  But that person's self-actualization goal infringes on the opportunity of self-actualization of those he employs.

The NGO would ensure than everyone's basic needs are met first, so that such exploitation of labor doesn't happen.

2: The barter economy falls because resources are valueless, that's nanotechnology.

We need to determine what can be classified as 'resources'.  One's knowledge and ability to impart this knowledge to students as a teacher is a kind of resource, for instance.  In a resource-based economy, a teacher would offer this service in exchange for other resources, like, for instance, clothes, perhaps one that one of the students' grandmothers knitted, or a painting that one of the student's cousins painted, or a set of skis that one of the students' fathers crafted. 

All of these crafts are resources created by humans, but, likewise, there could be some other items or 'resources' exchanged that have been created by nano-bots and have simply been passed-down or passed along in this form of resource / barter exchange system. My point is that an NGO ensuring and providing all basic needs to all people FIRST would be a necessary pre-requisit for this sort of economy to work.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> 1: Nobody qualified to determine self-actualization goals?  Yeah, that was my point.  It means your NGO is inherently bad.

It frees people to have the time to pursue their self-actualization regardless of the means by which they might try to attain it.  Without the time to pursue it, and if for some it IS ONLY with leisure time that they CAN attain their self-actualization goals, having an NGO providing everyone's basic needs would be a good thing.

Perhaps it is one's self-actualization goals to make vast populations of people work 20 hours a day 7 days a week (only to be paid enough to barely have their basic needs fulfilled) and make billions in profits off their labor.  But that person's self-actualization goal infringes on the opportunity of self-actualization of those he employs.

The NGO would ensure than everyone's basic needs are met first. so that such exploitation of labor doesn't happen.

Fair enoough.

2: The barter economy falls because resources are valueless, that's nanotechnology.

We need to determine what can be classified as 'resources'.  One's knowledge and ability to impart this knowledge to students as a teacher is a kind of resource, for instance.  In a resource-based economy, a teacher would offer this service in exchange for other resources, like, for instance, clothes, perhaps one that one of the students' grandmothers knitted, or a painting that one of the student's cousins painted, or a set of skis that one of the students' fathers crafted. 

All of these crafts are resources created by humans, but, likewise, there could be some other items or 'resources' exchanged that have been created by nano-bots and have simply been passed-down or passed along in this form of resource / barter exchange system. My point is that an NGO ensuring and providing all basic needs to all people would be a necessary pre-requisit for this sort of economy to work.

Here's the problem, though: All resources of all kinds will be readily available.  Knowledge is already free (the internet).

Physical goods (i.e. clothes, food, medicine) WON'T be crafted by humans.  They will be crafted by nanotechnology.  And since nanotechnology can produce further nanotechnology, the prerequisite to develop those products become readily available.

It's simple economics.  You can't sell a good that isn't subject to scarcity.

"You can't sell a good that isn't subject to scarcity."

This is the whole issue.

As the extent, power, and cost of our world military becomes more apparent to us world citizens, and it becomes apparent to citizens that current robotics technology could provide for the items a-f above at a mere fraction of the cost of the military, there will be political will to ensure it.

Moreover, as it becomes more apparent that some multinational corporations are in the business of trying to manipulate scarcity of goods to ensure their corporations' dominance in the world, and that there really isn't any 'scarcity' of any goods that might provide basic needs for people, there will simply be no reason to continue the current scarcity-based monetary economic system and we will switch to an abundance-based resource economy.

It's just a matter of time, really.

The thing I like about the resource-based model is that it is almost impossible to collect taxes from it.  The inability of governments to control and manipulate a resource-based economy is, I think, another reason it would be a good thing.