Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Resource-based economy
Zarf, you are just special 
Avo, I never said you were debating, i said you looked at the world differently... it is because of this you won't understand because you see problems in his theory where he sees none...
i dont see problems in his theory i dont see the goal of his theory. i dont see what he's trying to accomplish by eliminating jobs.and eliminating jobs is the reason why he wants robots to do shit. his entire idea resolves around eliminating jobs. and i want to know what he's trying to accomplish by eliminating jobs and he doesnt answer... i cant form an opinion until i know what he's trying to accomplish.
lol. I liked his defense of willful ignorance and arrogance. What a retard.
You want to know what the end goal is? Ok Avo.
But please, will you also tell me what the goal of the current global economic system is?
Does the current economic model have any goal at all? To me, it seems the goal is perpetual perpetuation of subsistence-level reliance on centralized, elite minority.
If you see it otherwise, please do indicated what that goal might be. I would gladly be convinced of the contrary.
To me, at the very least, the current economic system has no apparent goal at all; at the very least it just exists and functions according to random, unpredictable, and yet easily-manipulable forces.
If there is a stated objective of the current economic system, please do point me in the right direction to find it, and thus correct my appraisal of the current economic system. I am always and totally willing to change my mind about anything. Change is good. Change is natural.
If you cannot find a stated goal of the current global economic system, don't you think it is therefore quite ironic (if not outright hypocritical) to ask me to explain what the end goal of the economic model I propose might be?
But, nevertheless, I will answer your question. (I doubt, of course, you will answer any of the questions I posed above. Why is that? Oh, wait, I don't suppose you'll answer that question either. I think I'll just stop asking you questions. I guess I'll just state things to you instead.)
The goal is this: the trend of replacing human labor continues to the point where all basic needs for all people are met without any financial cost whatsoever: the automated system functions independently of all human involvement, except, perhaps, at the highest level, where 'maintenance' or 'upgrading' necessitates abstract, creative, problem solving capabilities of which only humans are capable. The humans, having their basic needs fulfilled, and, most probably, their self-actualization needs also fulfilled as a result, would most probably volunteer their expertise.
At this point, all conceivable economic activity surrounding basic human needs is simply taken care of for all people on Earth by automated technology. Therefore, at this point, all remaining human energies are spent fulfilling higher needs: security, esteem, self-actualization, and also at this time, of course, automated technology is in the process of making those higher needs abundant to all rather than scarce at a sustainable and well-paced level.
What we have today, however, is an economic system that is replacing human labor with automated technology, but without the goal in mind to provide all humanity with readily available basic needs. Our economic system has no stated goal at all (unless you can prove otherwise), and operates on vague, often random, unpredictable, chaotic 'market' forces, which are easily manipulated on the world stage of geo-political events.
Thus, instead of decreasing the costs of basic needs and instead of increasing the abundance of those resources with which humans' basic needs are met, the trend has been the very opposite: it has been to maintain or increase rather than decrease the cost of basic needs relative to average income; to diminish the abundance of those resources necessary for survival; to manipulate the scarcity of basic needs as leverage over humanity; to have dependent-on-the-centralized-state rather than independent-from-the-centralized-state individual within a complacent, obedient, fearful, apathetic, uncaring, dis-united humanity.
Automated technology is simply not being used to further the available abundance of resources necessary to meet the challenges the human race is facing in this century.
Let automation provide everyone the basic needs necessary for each and every single human to avoid starvation and thirst; to avoid homelessness and subsistence, and then start to use automated technologies to send a single human to Mars.
If you answer anything, Avo, answer me this:
Why can't us humans get our priorities straight, Avo?
I think that you believe this technology is actually easy to create. To rearrange the atoms in a piece of sh*t to equal a TV.
First of all, this will be so far in the future that it is not even worth talking about.
Second of all, ... i dont think there is a second of all
We don't need new technologies. If we can build a spacecraft that can land-itself on Mars with present-day technologies, I'm pretty sure we can certainly create a fully-automated agri-complex today. What we need is the political will to get the prototype done; what we need is a change in thinking towards considering that perhaps it is now ethical for the abundance of resources for and availability of basic needs to all people to be considered as the first goal of our global economic system, whether it is leaning towards a resource-based global economy or a monetary-based global economy. Moreover, if in fact it is possible to have fully-automated agri-complexes running at minimal financial cost, having basic needs available to all people should become a human right. Why? Because it would then be clear that our current level of technology makes such an abundance and availability possible. Perpetuating scarcity of basic needs, on the other hand, should then be equated with a violation of human rights, or even a crime against humanity.
If future historians ever prove that the perpetuation of scarcity of basic human needs is occurring in our current age, might they not even brand the perpetrators of such a perpetuation of scarcity 'traitors of humanity'. Will future historians view our entire generation guilty by association, or, at least, in similar light due to our complacency and apathy? I for one hope not.
Freedom is such a terrifying thing. I hope that with a massive government, robots, nanites, and other magical forces, we can solve everything! Let's talk about our latest LSD fantasies seriously!
"But please, will you also tell me what the goal of the current global economic system is?"
our current global economic system isnt centralized, so there is no singular goal, each individual has their own goals that they attempt to achieve by using the current economic system.
"If you cannot find a stated goal of the current global economic system, don't you think it is therefore quite ironic (if not outright hypocritical) to ask me to explain what the end goal of the economic model I propose might be?"
no, i dont; i dont see how it would be. you want change and i want to know what you envision the end product of your change to be. like i've already stated, im not attacking your stance, i'm trying to understand it, that is all.
"(I doubt, of course, you will answer any of the questions I posed above. Why is that? Oh, wait, I don't suppose you'll answer that question either. I think I'll just stop asking you questions. I guess I'll just state things to you instead.)"
the questions i have answered far exceed the ones you have answered. i dont know why you think i wont answer your questions, the only answer i can come up with is you think i wont answer your questions because you're a moron.
"At this point, all conceivable economic activity surrounding basic human needs is simply taken care of for all people on Earth by automated technology. Therefore, at this point, all remaining human energies are spent fulfilling higher needs: security, esteem, self-actualization, and also at this time, of course, automated technology is in the process of making those higher needs abundant to all rather than scarce at a sustainable and well-paced level."
im alittle confused here. basically you're saying jobs are eliminated so more people can work on "higher needs". what makes them higher?
>>what makes them higher?<<
They aren't, really. Basically, people arrange them in a hierarchy to aid conceptualization. But, really, there are only two kinds of needs: basic and higher. Higher needs aren't hierarchical in my opinion. But fulfilling basic needs is a pre-requisite for providing the opportunity to fulfill higher needs. Otherwise the process of fulfilling higher needs is frustrated.
But this dialogue isn't going where I would like it to go. You simply won't respond to the pertinent questions, and ask only those questions which bring you back to your intellectual comfort zone. Thus, it is pointless to converse with you anymore, Avo.
You failed to answer the important question. I even pointed it out to you:
"Why can't us humans get our priorities straight, Avo?"
"Why can't us humans get our priorities straight, Avo?"
people do get their priorities straight. its just that different people have different priorities, because our focus is rightly on the individual and not the race.
>>i dont see problems in his theory i dont see the goal of his theory. i dont see what he's trying to accomplish by eliminating jobs.and eliminating jobs is the reason why he wants robots to do shit. his entire idea resolves around eliminating jobs. and i want to know what he's trying to accomplish by eliminating jobs and he doesnt answer... i cant form an opinion until i know what he's trying to accomplish.<<
Exactly my point, you are unable to see his point because you can't see his world view...
>>people do get their priorities straight. its just that different people have different priorities, because our focus is rightly on the individual and not the race.<<
And that has so worked out for us, can you not see that things would be better if people focused on other people rather than themselves?
"They aren't, really. Basically, people arrange them in a hierarchy to aid conceptualization."
so then, how is that an improvment?
> You_Fool wrote:
>Exactly my point, you are unable to see his point because you can't see his world view...
he hasnt made a point
And that has so worked out for us, can you not see that things would be better if people focused on other people rather than themselves?
yes it has. it has seperated us from other animals and led to our dominance over this world. if you dont focus on the individual, but the group, the group fails because its full of failing individuals.
Our priorities are straight, dumbass. Freedom is something we value and cherish. That some stupid kid was pampered too much and thinks himself an intellectual and believes everyone requires his endless free time to ponder the vastness of the universe does not mean that billions of 'less fortunate' (yet more bestowered by their creator! the Greeks did think the intellect to be the highest gift from the gods!) souls do not live meaningful and satisfying lives.
Maintaining the freedom to live our own lives IS the HIGHEST priority of competent human beings. It is not one of YOUR priorities because you are incompetent.
>>And that has so worked out for us, can you not see that things would be better if people focused on other people rather than themselves?<<
People have more now than they've ever had in the history of humanity. Yet instead of learning from this and seeking to correct imperfections, you wish to RETURN to a corrupt CLAIM of utilitarian socialism because it will DO MORE for people. Buy a history book. Use your brain. You were given one by your creator, whoever that is. Your neglect of it has got to be a sin, whomever your god is.
First we have a nut who believes we ought to pursue justice and equality, and thinks there's a class of incorruptible people who can guarantee it efficiently.
Then we have another nut who thinks we ought to guarantee personal freedom, and somehow all rational beings are able to know that a priori. Conversely, anyone who does not know we ought to guarantee personal freedom is incompetent.
Am I missing something here?
I didn't say we should return to anything, but more that to continue to focus only on yourself will lead to ruin... My prioity has always been that for humans to succeed we must balance the self with the all...
Of course kemp i don't think you have even the ounce of brain power to understand this... and I have already pointed out that Avo will never get it...
so then, how is that an improvment?
The basic needs and higher needs are both needs, that is they are both needed, essential for human happiness, fulfillment, meaning.
Needs are needed - all of them, not just basic needs! Now, if basic needs are a pre-requisite to gaining the opportunity to acquire higher needs, and the economic system is based on creating profit through manipulating market forces to create a scarcity of basic needs, 'equal opportunity to the pursuit of happiness' is being sabotaged.
Have you heard the a phrase like 'equal opportunity to the pursuit of happiness' somewhere Kemp? Have you read the constitution of the United States recently, Kemp? Have you ever read it?
This isn't about socialism or capitalism being better. It is about technology and ethics. If technology brings us to the point where enough food and water for all humans on the planet can be produced for free, it simply would be unethical and, I would even go so far as to say, UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government not develop the technology, and CRIMINAL of the government to disallow or filibuster the development that technology.
"I didn't say we should return to anything, but more that to continue to focus only on yourself will lead to ruin... My prioity has always been that for humans to succeed we must balance the self with the all..."
thats a pretty basic idea. i dont see what part you would expect me to not get. ofcoarse i disagree with you, but thats very different from not getting it.
"The basic needs and higher needs are both needs, that is they are both needed, essential for human happiness, fulfillment, meaning. "
could you list off some higher needs? i know you probably said acouple awhile ago, but most of your posts are so drawn out, it would take me forever to find them.
The classification of higher needs is rather dubious. But self-actualization is one, esteem is another, belonging, and security.
You're overly presumptuous, Justinian I. I don't presume all of that. I just don't care. Having half of any real discussion here would cause migranes.
>>I didn't say we should return to anything, but more that to continue to focus only on yourself will lead to ruin... My prioity has always been that for humans to succeed we must balance the self with the all...<<
People have been claiming to act thus for millenia. You're far too uneducated to have this discussion with, yet arrogant enough to insult anyone with more education (and I daresay intelligence, because you're a cocky little stupid kid!) than you.
>>Have you heard the a phrase like 'equal opportunity to the pursuit of happiness' somewhere Kemp? Have you read the constitution of the United States recently, Kemp? Have you ever read it?<<
That phrase is not in it. It protects the right to the pursuit of happiness. You obviously haven't read it or annything else that would educate you on history.
>>If technology brings us to the point where enough food and water for all humans on the planet can be produced for free, it simply would be unethical and, I would even go so far as to say, UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government not develop the technology, and CRIMINAL of the government to disallow or filibuster the development that technology.<<
It doesn't exist. I would contend that it most likely never will. But regardless of our disagreement there, if it existed I would not DEMAND that the GOVERNMENT provide for ALL MY NEEDS. I'd rely on the private market and DO IT MYSELF/with others. It would be done faster this way. It would be done cheaper this way. It would be done more efficient this way. It would be done better this way. Any necessary repairs/adjustments would be done more quickly this way. And someone would be accountable this way. No one would be STEALING (that is, by force, like you propose by FORCING people to give you their money so you can set up YOUR ideal system of distribution) my money this way and using it for their own gain. That's what politicians do now. That is what they have always done. You act like YOU are compassionate and want to care for everyone, but it's YOU proposing we give the corrupt MORE money and power to misuse and abuse and I who favors NOT stealing in order to empower the corrupt.
You only call it unconstitutional because you don't know what the constitution says. The constitution of the USA protects your right to do it yourself. It doesn't promise to give it to you or give you the right to TAKE other people's wealth because YOU know better how to spend it for them. In fact, it protects THEM from YOU. Read the constitution. If you are an American, your ignorance of it is disgusting.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> The classification of higher needs is rather dubious. But self-actualization is one, esteem is another, belonging, and security.
so you think self-actualization, esteem, belonging, and security are needed inorder for an individual to be happy?
> avogadro wrote:
> > xeno syndicated wrote:
> The classification of higher needs is rather dubious. But self-actualization is one, esteem is another, belonging, and security.
so you think self-actualization, esteem, belonging, and security are needed inorder for an individual to be happy?
To clarify what xeno is trying to explain, he's basically arguing Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
Physiological needs
Safety/Security
Love, friendship, belonging
Esteem
Self-actualization
You probably know the theory, but I'll just clarify it in case anyone is reading, yet doesn't know it:
That list is the order of what we, as humans, strive for, starting with what is on the top of the list and moving down. Once we find one need met (for example, if you've established a financial future that ensures a safe retirement, satisfying the physiological and a good portion of safety/security needs), we begin to look toward the next item up on the list (love, in this case). However, while one doesn't need to 100% satisfy one need as a prerequisite to step up toward the next level, a devastation of one level would foil attempts to satisfy the other levels in the hierarchy (for example, a person trying to establish a secure retirement fund will find it very difficult if they're suddenly laid off and have little prospects for income, jeopardizing their short term physiological needs). But personally, I think that ordering can get into a real gray area when you get higher on the scale (can someone else love you if you don't love yourself?).
i think for me, upside down makes more sense. i think the first thing i strove for was self-actualization, once i met that, i sought esteem, then i sought real friends, and then now im seeking safety and security
and though it may be surprising to some, i have never taken a physiology or philosophy class in college. so no, i have never heard of it before
@ Kemp
I asked if you have heard of a phrase >>>>>>LIKE<<<<<< 'equal opportunity to the pursuit of happiness' in some place like, let's say, the constitution of the United states, not quoted directly.
Here is where a phrase which is LIKE the one I used above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And here is another one, but this time in the US declaration of independence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
Oh, and here is something else for you to read on equality of opportunity:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/
And here is another interesting read (perhaps you should get acquainted with your nation's political theory before you try and argue about it, Kemp):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Imperial Forum → Politics → Resource-based economy
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.