Open thread for episode #910: Russell and Martin


It was my first time back on the show in months, following family matters that have now settled. And we’re sorry, but we forgot to mention that — and there’s no way to soften the blow — there is going to be a three-week gap before the next show. A tiny little point to overlook, this. Derp.

Mostly the break is due to some shuffling in our crew. We bid a fond farewell to our longtime and most capable of producers, Frank Paschal, who is leaving us for the painted deserts of Arizona where new life opportunities beckon. Our other producer will be unavailable during this time as well. We’ll see you all again soon (April 19th). Until then, sound off on today’s show (video to be posted soon).

If you’d like to help the ACA in their Camp Quest sponsorship, please go to http://www.atheist-community.org/donate/ and include note with your donation earmarking it for Camp Quest Texas. We are donating $2500 to sponsor four campers.

Comments

  1. TxSkeptic says

    How do you sus out the other atheists in the family, or in any crowd? I can’t believe you guys didn’t throw this trick out there – when every one else has gone into scrunch mode praying, you peer over the crowd, head high and confident, to see who else is looking. Not all will be atheists, but the likely ones will return a smile instead of shooting you a scowl. It’s a good first cut.

  2. says

    If there’s no God, does it matter what I believe? I’d argue that if there is a God, your beliefs don’t matter (except for the “correct” mandated belief). The point when your beliefs start mattering is when there isn’t a universal cosmic overlord overriding them.

  3. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Jasper
    If Stargate SG-1 taught me anything, it is that the proper answer an evil god is not to bow down and worship, but to blow it up. Nuke god! How do we know that this god character is all-powerful and invulnerable? Because it said so? The goa’uld and the Ori said the same thing, and the heroes of SG-1 blew them up just fine, and that includes the Ori which did not exist as matter-energy beings inside our time-and-space.

    It always annoys me when atheists are so quick to acquiesce to the (IMHO biblically unsupported) notion that a god / the god is all powerful and invulnerable. Further, even if the Christian god exists and purported to be all powerful as recorded by the bible, why should we believe it? Nuke god! We’ll never know if we can blow it up until we try.

    PS: Even if there is an all-powerful and invulnerable god, that doesn’t make our beliefs and choices meaningless. It’s evident enough that such a god is not overriding my calls to nuke it right now, which means that my beliefs do have impact. Perhaps the impact is ephemeral and fleeting, but that’s nothing new. Most of us atheists are already putting value into our lives which we view as ephemeral, fleeting, and temporary.

  4. frankgturner says

    If Scot in Mississippi is listening I have a story that goes with your young earth creationist friend and how there is actual technology based upon evolutionary principles that would not work if evolution was not real. I have told the story many times and it keys in on people who need to be convinced by emotion rather than logical reasoning (to some degree). I have told it several times on these blogs and don’t mind telling it again.
    .
    Also I would respond to your second question on the show by talking about the “Free Market of Ideas” discussed in The Republic and how that applies to America and the world today. (I have told that a few times as well but it does not have as much emotional appeal).
    .
    If you are listening I have what I believe to be good responses to both ideas.

  5. Noncompos Mentis says

    To: Jasper of Maine. I have yet to hear of someone having a benign belief in any god. If you truly believe there is some god then you make decisions based on that belief. Many christians try hard to be good moral peolple. However, many christians believe there is a god which has declared that he will not allow man to destroy what he has created, and thus, they do not believe in climate change. That is willed ignorance. They do not initiate changes to help the earth and to a large degree ignore the issue totally. I know, my extended family believe this. We have a nation of willfully ignorant citizens who find virtue in remaining so. Now that is a sin.

  6. Narf says

    @5 – Noncompos Mentis
    It depends upon your definition of gods and the scope of effects that you would include.

    A deistic belief could be pretty much completely benign. It’s hard to imagine how someone could twist a belief in a god who doesn’t give a damn what we do into any course of action, either positive or negative. Personally, I think the whole enterprise is just silly, since I don’t understand what deists think they’re gaining by holding their belief.

    I’ve heard one or two isolated deists claim that their belief is more justifiable than the atheist position, which only demonstrates that they don’t understand basic logic — specifically the null hypothesis — or understand the importance of scientific falsifiability. So, if you’re including the contamination of their logic and skepticism by holding a belief that is unsupported and unfalsifiable, then sure, you could say that even deism isn’t 100% benign. But if you’re only looking at more direct effects of the belief itself, rather than the logical framework behind that belief, deism might qualify as benign.

    Within the scope of god-beliefs that you mentioned though, that of an authoritarian, theistic god with a holy book or holy writings … yeah, you’re going to get something wrong somewhere, no matter how liberal and fuzzy your concept of god is.

  7. gshelley says

    For the guy who had never heard of Pascal’s Wager, I’d have paraphrased it as “It’s the idea that if you don’t believe in god, he’s going to get you, so you should believe just in case”

  8. says

    One very troublesome effect of the most peace-and-love liberal religion I’ve found is that allegiance to some higher power is still taken as essential for people to be whole and decent. This becomes a problem when atheists come out to them. They don’t mind too much if the atheist is smart enough to pretend to covet their wonderful faith. If you’re dumb enough (as I was) to admit that I feel better and have no regrets about losing my faith, they can get cold and mean very fast.

  9. Fair Witness says

    @frankgturner #4
    Please share your story about “technology based upon evolutionary principles”, or give us a link to your previous blog post about this. I am always looking for good ammo to counter creationist arguments.

  10. Robert, not Bob says

    @3-EL, they’re speculating within the fictional reality, like “What cool tricks could we play with a Transporter”, not reacting as they actually might, like “No way would I ride a Transporter, it’d kill me!”

    @8-Peggy, the real problem seems to be how to tell people their most fundamental mental assumptions are wrong. I’ve run into this with anti-Feminism, conservatism of all stripes, and New-Age woo (as well as religion). I don’t know if there is a solution: there’s nothing more guaranteed to bring up the defenses.

  11. frankgturner says

    @Fair Witness # 9
    .
    I have retold the story a couple of times and don’t mind doing it again. I may mess up on the details (or include some not before) but the gist is there. The point is to appeal to emotion (which I think many creationists need as they cling to their belief for emotional reasons) while staying true to fact. Here goes.
    .
    Many years ago my cousin (for whom I am using the pseudonym Moira) was married to a young earth creationist. Now mind you I come from a Catholic family who is liberally minded on a lot of things and has no problem seeing early scripture as metaphor, i.e.: Adam and Eve don’t really exist because evolution is what happened but Jesus did exist types. (Think Ken Miller). Moira married a man whom I will call John (also a pseudonym).
    .
    I was never fond of John as he was an arrogant prick (big surprise there) although he was reasonably intelligent and despite acknowledging that the Bible did have contradictions it was still “God’s Word” and to him was still primarily factually correct (i.e.: he thought Adam and Even existed along with the flood). As he often put it, it is “66 love letters from God” with some “poetry and prose” mixed together. (I still have no idea what my cousin ever saw in him). He actually had read the Bible and some stuff about it and basically had it in mind that God guided the council of Nicea on what books to pick to put in scripture (my guess was he thought that a figure like Charlton Heston with a White Beard and a glowing light around him was present with the early Xtians). You get the idea here, young earth creationist but not a pure Biblical literalist.
    .
    They were at family events and over the years Moira and John had 3 children. Now John was not really fond of doctors and medicine as he knew that evolution was behind a lot of modern biology and he did not approve of that (not exactly a “science is a big conspiracy” type but getting close). He respected Moira and let her go to doctors for ultrasounds and the like (he did not attend those) and was sort of ok with her having the children delivered in a hospital (he encouraged her to have the children at home with other medical staff like a midwife and my cousin would have nothing of it).
    .
    When she was pregnant with their third child (whom I will call by the pseudonym George) something pretty dreadful happened. George was born with a rare heart condition where the walls on the inside of his heart don’t separate and the valves don’t work properly. (Left Heart Hypoplastic Syndrome if you are interested). The statistics were bad, without treatment then the chances of survival past 3 months were slim and past a year are basically non existent (no one survives this without treatment). Without transplantable heart tissue from a donor newborn (which never happens) George’s only hope was an experimental procedure. You may have heard of this before, it is called Xenobiotic surgery. As his father (and of course the mother, my cousin) John was given a lot to read about what this entailed.
    .
    A lot of what he was given had to do with evolution, particularly with regard to how a shortage of transplant tissue had once given way to usage of baboon hearts to repair baby human hearts (which did not work too well). He would have shouted his disagreements but he kept his mouth shut thinking only of the life of his child. He heard more and more of this (which they were required to fill him in upon). His minister and his parish tried to convince him not to do it but he had his wife (my cousin) to think about, as well as the life of his son. His minister was really weird in that he said something to the effect of the boy’s soul being damaged by work upon his heart and the boy being nothing more than a demon. (The parish believed that when something “came from the bottom of your heart” that this was a LITERAL link between the personality and the heart).
    .
    Of course there would also be follow up surgeries and pills and procedures to prevent immuno-rejection (procedures ALSO driven by an understanding of evolutionary biology). Now one can take the Ray Comfort view that this is because god uses the same blueprint from one species to another, but George’s heart was being repaired with that of a pig. Yes, various species were studied and the one with the closest resemblance to us in terms of circulatory function and heart structure and chemistry was not a primate, but a pig (there are procedures that involve cows too now). John had to sit through and listen to many explanations of how and why this could work and evolution was a BIG part of what he had to listen to. I don;t think John fully understood it all but he knew that it had saved the life of his son.
    .
    John was not the type of person to admit he was wrong under ANY circumstances. However, he also did not like looking like an idiot and he did have moderate intelligence. At family events he would still argue that Noah’s Ark and the great flood happened at family events, but bring up evolution and look at his son and John’ mouth shut. He could have been like Xtian Scientists (is that the group) who would kneel and pray rather than giving in to science, but some part of him knew that his son would have died (like I said, he had to sit and listen to a LOT of what the hospital discussed with him regarding his son).
    .
    That was 20 years ago. George is still alive and not only is he in college and an eagle scout, he goes and does talks about the type of procedures that he himself went through over the years. I’ve been to the talks and even met other kids who went through this procedure (who also have pig parts in their hearts) who are adults today. Of course, evolution acts as a barrier to Xenotransplantation, but that acknowledges that evolution happened.
    .
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919106600034And
    .
    Now many a creationist might still object to this, but what if it was their child? Many will say that they would pray and lot god handle it and accept if the child dies, and George could have died as the procedure was much more experimental in those days. (George survived after having been a recipient of the Make a Wish foundation to give you an idea).
    .
    FYI, I reference John discussing religion arrogantly at family events after George’s survival in the past tense because about 7 years ago John cheated on my cousin with another woman (surprise surprise coming from a YEC). They are since divorced. Although I think what he did was wrong I could see how John’s self esteem had been supported by his “I am so much better than you because of what I believe” attitude crumble over the years. Somehow he just couldn’t maintain a sense of self worth unless he had someone to put down and act superior to, which is sad. (He is still a good dad to his kids though).
    .
    The question I would propose to creationists is this Fair Witness, would you really let someone you love and care about, like your child, die because you refused to acknowledge evolution? If evolution was not real, would technology based upon it work? Would you risk the life of someone you care about on that?

  12. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Frank
    Powerful story. I doubt it’ll be effective unless one lives through it, but powerful story.

  13. frankgturner says

    @EL
    Thanks, I have told this story on these blogs a few times. I did live it (albeit from the view of an outsider). It is not unique, others have lived through this type of thing and sometimes don’t realize the implications. Other stories like this can be found.
    ,
    To the show’s hosts, you are welcome to use this story if you like (or direct people towards it),

  14. Fair Witness says

    @frankgturner

    Thanks for re-telling the story. I think most creationists could rationalize their way around it, but it might shut up many medical-science-deniers.

    As for John cheating on and divorcing your cousin after all that ….. Holy… Fucking….Shit.

  15. frankgturner says

    @ Fair Witness
    You are welcome, and she initiated the divorce after discovering him cheating.
    .
    I think his biggest problem was being unable to deal with being wrong. He had this weird dichotomy in his head, that he was either always right about everything or always wrong about everything. He could not seem to deal with having been wrong about his son. Like being wrong about this one thing just crushed him. Like if he was wrong about evolution then he was wrong about everything in his religious beliefs and in his mind he was his beliefs.
    .
    You know how I said that if you mentioned evolution at family events then look at his son and he would shut his mouth? He would often keep quiet the rest of the evening and I heard stories of him barely talking to people beyond what he had to at home or work for days after that.
    .
    I think that maybe he was severely depressed on the inside and his religion was his way of escaping that and he never realized that there are other ways to cope. I sometimes wonder if he cheated on her because he was trying to make himself feel better and just couldn’t. Matt D talked on the show about people being severely depressed and needing some sort of stimulation.

  16. Hippycow says

    Thanks Frank. So, did “George” grow up to be rational or a believer?

    “that he was either always right about everything or always wrong about everything”
    Well, to some extent, he is on to something there. If your method of arriving at conclusions is bad, then yes, you will have to reevaluate everything if you change it. If you have relied on an appeal to authority for all your major views about reality, then you may have a few things right by chance, but a lot will be wrong. Letting go of that sureness is probably pretty scary.

  17. says

    @10 Robert, not Bob
    Right, Robert, not Bob. And not just their defenses but their offensive position, too. It feels rather tribal. And, yes, saying that I’m happy now and glad to be out can’t help but sound pretty insulting to those who consider being “in” a virtue, no matter how it’s said. I just really didn’t expect the pure meanness, I guess.

    You said: “the real problem seems to be how to tell people their most fundamental mental assumptions are wrong. I’ve run into this with anti-Feminism, conservatism of all stripes, and New-Age woo (as well as religion). I don’t know if there is a solution: there’s nothing more guaranteed to bring up the defenses.”

  18. Mr. Dave says

    I can be patient with waiting until AXP is staffed enough to resume broadcast. There’s plenty of past videos on YT that I can watch or listen to in the meantime. Just today, to my horror, I discovered that “God is Not Dead” has been added to Netflix. After all the reviews and discussions I’ve read about this crime on celluloid, I have doubts that I possess the pain threshold to actually watch (likely hate-watch) it, but I am morbidly curious. Would a gathering to watch it MST3K style or a drinking game make this thing palatable enough to bear witness to its lurid lies?

  19. Ethan Myerson says

    It was great to hear Martin’s voice again. I don’t know what personal troubles you were facing, Martin, but I hope everything is (or will soon be) OK.

    To the caller (Steve in Phoenix) who felt that he could justify a belief in a god based on there being an absolute reality: you demonstrated on that call that you don’t understand the difference between a label and the thing it names, you don’t get what “absolute” means, you don’t have a basic understanding of the nature of spacetime, and when Russell brought up Heisenberg, you admitted that that was above your head. Please understand that there’s nothing wrong with being ignorant of those concepts, but also understand that that ignorance should be what spurs you on to learn more, not serve as a basis for a counter-argument.

    I am largely ignorant when it comes to the workings of my car’s engine, beyond the most basic level of understanding. If I wanted to argue that my car’s engine cannot possibly work as engineers describe, I’d have to educate myself considerably. It would be irresponsible and foolish for me to use my ignorance as a basis for an argument.

  20. JD and Co. says

    @8 & 17 Peggy

    Unfortunately there are always going to be people who take offense. When I first became a vegetarian, there were people who reacted just on the mere fact of me not eating meat as a challenge to their diet. I was fascinated and horrified at the vigorous defense when no offense was meant. Eventually i found ways to let people know not to cook me a roast to minimize any reaction, not because I felt sorry for their poor little sensibilities but because I got tired of the “What the hell’s wrong with eating meat?” crap.

    Religion is even more prone to this kind of defensiveness because we’re not just talking about diet, we’re into a whole world-view gestalt and for that reason I’m even more circumspect with the topic. If the subject comes up I’ll talk about it, but i usually don’t say things like ‘I’m happier now’ because I figure my life speaks for itself, and also it’s extremely hard to phrase this without sounding condescending.

    On the other hand, if Christians directly ask me “Do you miss it?” and then challenge me that I can’t possibly be happy without god, then fight’s on, because the topic is no longer “I’m a Christian, you’re not” and is now “You’re either a liar or delusional” which is an insult. And if they’re cold and mean? I can be even colder and meaner because I have more material to work with, and I’m not bound by any “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” hypocrisy (which I won’t hesitate to gleefully point out).

  21. frankgturner says

    @HippyCow # 16
    “George” has grown up to be a casual believer and pretty rational on a lot of things. I have never really held his feet to the fire so to speak about his beliefs. I would guess that he is about a 3 on the Dawkin’s scale (maybe a bit higher but not a 4). He is NOt a creationist like is father “was” (His father never really admitted to dropping his views about creationism, but he would not defend them and talking about it made him very uncomfortable). “George” has even teamed up with some of the kids who were beneficiaries of the program and they go around talking to parents in churches and the like who are unsure of the risks. The father once had to be spoken to by doctors to explain things like the biology behind what happened and they started to think, what a better way to promote the program than by talking to the beneficiaries themselves? George is good at it too, a great public speaker and he will more than willingly discuss the slides and how hearts can be repaired with pig and cow parts and when asked if he knows a beneficiary George will gladly show the scars on his chest.
    .
    As a casual believer George keeps a lot of his views and practices to himself so it is more like what JD here describes as being a vegetarian. He is casually and liberally Xtian but listens to other viewpoints and sees nothing wrong with other culture’s religious views and even learns about an encourages them if that is there path. So what he eats for dinner (metaphorically speaking) does not influence what you eat or what he thinks you should be eating for dinner. His form of Xtianity is right for him.
    .
    His father was not like that. to his father if you believed something different that meant that he had too. As if his own views were that weak. I guess that is where his beliefs were really tested. It was more than the idea of letting go of that level of certainty, it was coming to the realization that those beliefs really could influence another person in a way that you might not like. I suspect that “John” wanted to shout out his objections (based on what I could tell, he did) to evolutionary biology but was coming to the realization that if he did his son could die.
    .
    Objecting to evolution is one thing, but when you have to look someone that you care about in the eye and realize that they could suffer and die without the benefits of medical practices that benefitted from evolutionary teaching, it puts in in perspective. I suspect that some sort of internal battle was raging in the father’s mind.

  22. frankgturner says

    @Ethan # 19
    The caller who said that Heisenberg was above his head is probably in the same arena with the caller who had never heard of “Pascal’s Wager.” Many believers were isolated from various philosophical and academic ideas by their communities in the USA and the internet is bringing them outside cultures and an outside world.
    .
    I mentioned “The Republic” before and the idea was how a “Free Market” of ideas would bring new ideas for people to consider. The best ideas should sell well. In the USA many ideas sold well because of isolation from other cultures. Better ideas were out there, they were just not well distributed because of isolationist propaganda. Now good ideas are there but they take time to understand.
    .
    The callers seem new to these ideas and are probably just learning to understand many of them. Some of us were in that position too at one point.

  23. Indiana Jones says

    @18 Mr. Dave

    A drinking game could be fun. Just take a belt from your bottle every time you see an argument made (explicit or implicit) that has been addressed on the show more than 5 times is my suggestion…

  24. Narf says

    @18 – Mr. Dave

    Just today, to my horror, I discovered that “God is Not Dead” has been added to Netflix. After all the reviews and discussions …

    Daniel Fincke did a full review of it, with spoilers, since he didn’t feel that anyone in his audience was likely to actually want to watch it for the dramatic revelation: How “God’s Not Dead” Makes Christians Look Even Worse Than It Makes Atheists Look. There are also plenty of atheist YouTubers who have watched it with commentary, which should make it a little less painful to get through.

    I don’t know if the reviews you’ve read were a little less spoilery, leaving you with the need to watch it for the full experience or what. Or maybe you just wanted to see how pitiful the actual arguments made by Kevin Sorbo’s character were. You might be able to get a perspective on that by watching Steve Shives’s review of the tie-in book … which is a fairly pathetic apologetics book, not a narrative version of the movie. Watching five hours of Steve is less of a chore than sitting through 113 minutes of Kevin’s Sorbo’s crap.

    Speaking of which … holy crap. Look at the guy’s IMDB page. Those Christian direct-to-video/church production companies just churn the crap out like nothing, don’t they? I guess that when the total filming time for one of their movies is 20 days, that leaves time for a lot of movies in a year.

    God’s not Dead, Plot Keywords: propaganda | critically bashed | dementia | atheist | professor …

  25. Narf says

    Cool, looks like they somehow got rid of that multi-link moderation trigger, for comments. I had three in that last one, and it went straight through.

  26. Wooky says

    Just wondering why it’s taking more than 7 days to upload the video for each episode when the mp3 is on the AE site the day after the show airs?

  27. ChaosS says

    @frankgturner – Thanks for the story, M. Night Shamalin could not have written a better twist at the end.

    @Mr. Dave – I’m happy to see it has a 1.3 of 5 rating and bad reviews from both Christians and Atheists. I haven’t watched it, but it still managed to ruin Hercules for me… I used to enjoy Sorbo.

  28. Narf says

    @27 – Wooky
    Video editing and conversion take a long time, in terms of production on the computer itself. Plus, if someone is uploading it from their home after doing the conversion, the upload process will take freaking forever, most likely.

    Residential broadband services are asynchronous. Mine, for example, runs about 30/1 Mbits/sec. Downloading the hour-long video file from some recording that I do for my local Sunday Assembly organization takes about 30 or 40 minutes, on their end. Uploading it takes me about 12 or 14 hours.

    Relative to the situation with the video, stripping the audio from the show and uploading all 13.5 megabytes is effortless.

  29. frankgturner says

    @ ChaosS # 29
    You are welcome and unlike M. Night Shyamalin, this is non fiction (aside from the fact that I am using pseudonyms instead of their real names, kind of like me whose real name is not frank g turner).
    .
    I told the story to a friend today who talked to me about faith and how blind faith can provide people with a sense of security. That situation probably did a number on his father’s faith. I know creationists who would still argue around it but I guess that it is a whole lot different to present those arguments when you are LIVING the situation and having to go through the emotional turmoil.
    .
    @ JD and Co, I submitted my info to the website you posted on the other blog and have not heard back. Wonder if a response wound up in my spam box. I will try again soon.

  30. Cole Luna says

    I’m a tad new to viewing The Atheist Experience, and I’d just like to inquire how I’d be able to get a call in. Perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough, but I haven’t been able to find such information… thanks for anyone who could help out in advance!

  31. Mr. Dave says

    I’ve decided to save my liver and my mind by just doing a little more reading of the reviews. Thanks, Narf.

  32. Narf says

    @32 – Cole & @33 – Martin
    Specifically, way up the page, on the left. The call-in information is next to comment #4, at least the way that my browser is rendering the page. If you’re on a mobile device, Cole, you might have to go to a PC to pull that up or request a full version of the site, if your mobile device allows that. I don’t think those bits around the edges are there, on the mobile version of the site.

  33. Narf says

    @34 – Mr. Dave
    Yeah, it’s one of those situations where the actual thing itself isn’t worth your time. Movies like this tend to wallow in the Christian warm-fuzzies, for minutes at a time, being maddening for anyone who isn’t emotionally primed by brainwashing into the faith. I haven’t watched the movie myself, but I’m pretty sure that Daniel’s review hit all of the important plot points.

  34. JD and Co. says

    @31 Frank
    If you used the form, I didn’t get it. Try emailing me directly from the email on the “Contact Us” page.

  35. Narf says

    @37 – Martin
    Yeah, and I just tried to force the desktop version of the site, on my S4, and FTB basically said, “Screw you! You’re going to have the mobile version and like it!”

    The mobile site strips out that entire left-side panel, up there at the top.

  36. StonedRanger says

    @Cole #32
    CALLING/BEING ON THE AIR

    The Atheist Experience uses a cable access studio that is used during the week by other programs. Do not attempt to call us at any time other than our scheduled air time, which is 4:30-5:30 PM CST on Sunday afternoons. The number is 512-472-2255. To increase your chances of getting on the air, as the phone lines fill up quickly, trying calling beginning around 4:15-4:20. If you are a theist, your call will be placed higher in the queue. The phone screener will ask what your question or topic is, and this information is made available to the hosts before they answer you. If you are an atheist calling, please have a clear and succinct question ready for the hosts. While we appreciate kudos and compliments, we discourage fans from calling just to tell us that they enjoy the show. Kudos are best sent as emails, and please take it as understood that we appreciate your kind words, even if we don’t respond to you.

    Direct from the site.

  37. Elu Sive says

    I am surprised no one has mentioned but the link in the archives points to episode 909… Seems episode 910 was never uploaded to youtube, right?

  38. says

    It has not yet been, and keep in mind we have just lost one crew member and another going on a short hiatus — all of which is contributing to the fact that there will be no shows for the next three weekends. So expect updates to the YouTube channel to be affected as well. We’ll see about correcting the bad link.

  39. ironchops says

    Don’t worry, there will be plenty to talk about with these new “religious restoration” laws gett’n passed.

  40. Narf says

    With the what? What sort of laws are you talking about? Can you link us to an article about what you mean?

    I’ve probably heard about whatever you’re talking about and just don’t recognize them by the label you’re using.

  41. projectp says

    Thank you Martin for making the point I have wanted to make to Russel for over a year now. Slavery is not just picking cotton on a plantation. In fact, I would go as far as asserting the old slave masters who became rich realized that a new kind of slavery would be preferable. One where the slaves did not realize that they were indeed slaves. economic slavery is what I call it.

  42. kudlak says

    @projectp
    So-called “economic slavery” may have similarities to actual slavery, but it also has significant differences. Coal miners may have felt as though their children had no choice but to work for the company, but those children still had the freedom to pursue other opportunities where actual slaves did not. Modern couples may feel that they have to work two jobs each in order to simply make ends meet, but many can simply trim their expenses down enough to work less. Actual slaves do not have the freedom to choose how prosperous they wish to be. Don’t get me wrong, there are still plenty of people who are living in poverty and cannot seem to get out of the cycle of living paycheque to paycheque, but they still have the freedom to work at bettering themselves that actual slaves did not.

  43. projectp says

    And that’s where “they” fool you. it is an illusion of opportunity, and the masters know that slaves will come and go from the “pool” but that’s all that happens a shuffling of the pool of slaves. It’s brilliantly sick. You should know that people as a whole are not doing better than before and the select few who make it rich (basically winning the lottery) are used as the carrot (hope) of getting out of it all. but it is a false hope for 99.9% of the rest.

  44. kudlak says

    That’s the problem with the modern take on the American Dream; everyone thinks that it means you’re a complete failure unless you become rich and famous and, preferably, without doing much to actually earn it. People blame reality shows for this, but I think it goes back to the beginnings of Hollywood. Contrasted with the kind of talent and genius a Ford needed to become successful back then, some farm girl turned actress suddenly could become just as wealthy and famous. It’s come to the point where people would rather be infamous than unknown.
    That’s not to say that all celebrities have their fame and fortune just handed to them. Many are hard-working and talented. In any case it’s just silly to say that all rich people basically “win the lottery”. I got an education, worked hard and live rather comfortably. I may not be in the top 0.1 %, but that doesn’t make me a slave. Feeling that success only comes once you join the list of the world’s billionaires might, however.

  45. Narf says

    @projectp
    It isn’t as hard as you make it out to be. People with ability can rise up out of border-line wage-slavery situations. My girlfriend was born into poverty, in rural Georgia. She got a degree from a university in southern California, paid for completely by the university, because her parents were dirt-poor. She then went on from there to get a masters degree and is making 6-figures, only a few years after getting her masters degree.

    I was born into an upper-middle class family, so my own situation isn’t as impressive, held up against that. I’m probably making about the same as my father was, at this time in his life, although it’s hard to figure for inflation and such.

    Don’t get me wrong. The Republicans have been completely fucking the system lately. Minimum wage should be up around at least $12/hour. Real-value of wages has been dropping like a rock for the last 14 or 15 years.

    I just think you’re overstating things a bit.

  46. projectp says

    kudlak, reading your post it is apparent that you do not understand where i am coming from at all. Maybe read “The Tyranny of words” and take a look at Scientifically designed system like Technocracy or the Venus project. Study those and then get back to me. When i say study, i don’t mean give it a simple look over it would take at least 9 months to fully understand Technocracy inc.

    Narf,
    Most people do not make 6 figures. a quick look at the stats will show that. Even still Your GF is on the same tread mill although much more comfortable than most of her fellow humans. Also, a study just came out that showed to have the same spending power in 2014 as someone in 1976 making minimum wage would require 21 dollars an hour. So 6 figures is not as impressive as it used to be and less so with each day that passes.

    Once one uses science to study our economic system it is much easier to see what i am talking about.
    I have studied the problem for over 20 years so i don’t expect you guys to understand. I just had to comment on Russell very myopic view, which is unfortunately, a viewpoint a lot of “skeptics” share. Skeptics tow the establishment line far too often.

  47. kudlak says

    @projectp
    One thing though, religious experts would be considered Technocrats as well, right? Also, would you prefer politicians who are not experts in anything? We already have too many of those, don’t we?

  48. kudlak says

    @projectp
    The Venus Project sounds like something copied from Star Trek, and you want me to take it seriously?

  49. Narf says

    @52 – projectp
    People have studied Bigfoot for decades, too. If you can’t describe what you’ve learned in simple terms and back up you ballistic, wild-ass statements about slavery, then your 20 years of research hasn’t done much for you. If you can’t demonstrate what you’ve learned in your 20 years of study, then you’ve got nothing to show for it, kind of tautologically, since you don’t seem to be able to show it.

    You realize that telling someone to go study something for about a year, and they won’t understand it until they spend that time, puts you on pretty freaking shaky ground, right? That’s the same sort of thing that new-age gurus and religious zealots tell us about the shit they’re peddling.

    If you’d like to start again with a more rational claim about income inequality making us look more and more like a third-world country and that we need to do something about it, you might do a little better. Your problem is that you’re making wild statements about poverty-stricken coal-miners being stuck in that situation for generations, with the implication that no one gets out of that. My girlfriend nicely demonstrates the falsity of your statement.

  50. projectp says

    Obviously you guys are full of yourselves. The Venus project was named after Venus Florida where it is located.
    And your comment is really “The Venus Project sounds like something copied from Star Trek” The scientist/inventor who created it is about as far as anyone can get from crackpot. Look into yourself and you will see his credentials are stellar.
    Just off the top of my head he invented the airbag and worked for Boeing among many other things.

    Narf, your description of Technocracy shows that you do not want an honest conversation either. Technocracy inc. was developed from a project our government conducted called the great American energy survey. And the findings (back in the 1930’s) found that for the first time man could produce more than he could consume due to the kilowatt hour.

    Again many accredited Scientist worked on that project. Marion King Hubbert (October 5, 1903 – October 11, 1989) was a geoscientist who worked at the Shell research lab in Houston, Texas. He made several important contributions to geology, geophysics, and petroleum geology, most notably the Hubbert curve and Hubbert peak theory (a basic component of peak oil), with important political ramifications. He was often referred to as “M. King Hubbert” or “King Hubbert”.

    There is so much information that i can not do this every time someone that thinks he knows what he is talking about starts talking out of his ass.

    Don’t go into strawmen like new-age gurus and religious zealots, the only thing i care about is SCIENCE. period.
    And a scientifically run society would be preferable to the primitive outdated failure we have now.
    It is a failure because most of our problems have technical solutions that our systems we use now can never solve.

  51. projectp says

    I wish you could edit these post. i submitted the last post, before i was ready.

    Kudlak let me just say that it is obvious you and Narf have no idea what i am talking about.
    I don’t need to explain something to you that have a wealth of online information. That can explain much better than I can.
    https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/
    http://www.technocracyincorporated.org/

    Two great science-based systems that avoid all the pitfalls of our belief based system now. yes our currency is based on the faith of the people who use it.

  52. projectp says

    Freethought blogs my ass. it just hit me! you guys are dismissing something before you even know what it is.
    How can you have an honest conversation? you can NOT. It is partly my fault for trying to discuss something with someone who is not willing to even entertain ideas they are not familiar with and thus very dishonest.

  53. Narf says

    Dude, what part of this do you not get? You came at us with a bunch of hyperbolic crap about wage-slavery, and when you were asked to explain what the hell you were talking about, you fell back on an irrelevant argument from self-authority and a demand that we go spend at least 9 months reading over something, or else our opinion of it will be invalid. If something requires almost a year of brainwashing before we’ll see the brilliance of it, I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably bullshit.

    The people who declare that going back to the gold standard will fix every problem with the US economy can throw a shitload of documents at us and cite a handful of supposed experts, too. If you come here with something that makes you look like a crank, and you immediately fall back on almost every logical fallacy in the book, rather than providing an argument for your opinion, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get treated like a crank.

    Now, would you like to present an actual argument to us and explain what the hell you’re talking about? If not, just go away.

  54. projectp says

    My last comment still stands, there is really nothing more to say. I will end our interaction with the assertion that you are just an asshole incapable of freethought.

  55. Monocle Smile says

    @projectprick

    Don’t act like you came here to have a discussion. You came here to drop links and brag before getting “offended” and running off. We’ve seen this a hundred times before; you’re nothing special. It’s like there’s a factory somewhere pumping out people exactly like you.

  56. Narf says

    @61 – projectp
    So, in other words, no, you aren’t going to present an actual argument, just posture about how you’ve spent 20 years examining this stuff, and you know so much more than everyone else. Thanks for clearing that up.

  57. projectp says

    Monocle Smile, The hate coming from Narf was just dumb and unfounded. Now it is coming from you? I haven’t said a word to you. Ad hominem’s left and right. Run off? no, I just could not put up with Narf anymore.

    Narf’s bad assessments of logical fallacies were annoying. saying that i was making an argument from authority was just wrong. Interesting though i just watched a chat with Lawrence Kraus where he scoffed at that bad logic and said something to the effect of, if you go to an expert on a subject do you just dismiss everything he says as an argument from authority? of course not, how could one learn anything? I did not want the readers to take my word for it so i posted links where they could read for themselves.

    I stand by what i was saying from the beginning. And will add everyone outside the top 5% is a slave to the system, a debt-based system that must grow. using a currency that is created out of thin air and loaned into existence.

    I also stand behind ideas for new systems based on SCIENCE instead of trade and barter. Also, I gave links because the conversation is far too complex for me to explain on a blog to people who were having knee JERK reactions to things they know nothing about. You can not intelligently dismiss something you do not know anything about.

    Maybe i should not have, but i assumed the failures of all of the world’s economic systems were very obvious.
    Intrinsic to them are Poverty, Corruption and Classism. And the top down control that makes all the lower tiers slaves. Then you have Planned obsolescence and False scarcity which provide incentive to be wasteful and destructive. All of these things are part of structural violence which has killed more people than any war in history. I am sure all the points i have made will be ignored once again and childish remarks about the name of the venus project etc will be the only comments made. I really had higher hopes for a forum run by some of my favorite atheist/skeptics. I am not introducing unknown concepts or ideas that are unknown to the general public and intellectuals. I even heard an interview with Noam Chomsky discussing these ideas. Maybe Narf growing up in the upper middle-class has given him a natural bias and a knee jerk reaction to defend something that has worked for his family. Not realizing the devastatingly negative effects the system has had on the world in general. I was surprised to read someone mentioning Henery Ford’s success because he is one who profited from destruction. He made a lot of his money from Nazi Germany selling engines and trucks etc to Hitler. (look it up). Which his banker friends also financed in a win/win situation they created.

    Surely there must be at least a couple of good people onfreethoughtblogs.com?!? Someone willing to talk about the points I’ve made and not be vituperative jerks.

  58. kudlak says

    @projectp
    What does inventing the airbag have to do with this? Newton was brilliant in physics, but his chemistry was totally crackpot. He chased after trying to prove alchemy for most of his life. Just because you have a single good idea it doesn’t mean that you never had any bad ones.

    Using the stature of the founders of your theories as the basis for why they should be taken seriously is an argument from authority. If you want to avoid this criticism you’ll have to offer other arguments besides how smart these guys supposedly are.

    I also stand by my observation that any system claiming to be based on science instead of trade and barter sounds a lot like Star Trek to me. Are people free to pursue their own livelihoods in your futuristic utopia, or are they scientifically assigned to them like some new age version of communism? Is there a sorting hat involved? Explain, or accept our scepticism, because what you’ve offered so far isn’t enough to even bring me up to being skeptical.

  59. projectp says

    Kudlak,

    Thank you for raising the bar back and bring some sense of rationality back to the discourse!

    Jaques credentials were not part of the argument just an introduction to the man. If it came off that way then it was an error in my presentation, but none the less just one of Mr Fresco’s countless ideas. He is a very prolific inventor.
    There are all also a lot of video talks by him on youtube. Even a great interview of him by larry King (although older).

    He was an engineer at Boeing I see you ignored that, again the point was to show that he wasn’t just a one-trick pony.
    A way to familiarize you with him since you guys had not heard of him.

    I never said the plans were the end all be all, I said they are great idea’s based on science to move forward with. That put our economy in sync with technology instead of opposed to technology as it is now. Plans like this and all man-made Plans should be flexible enough to be updated with the current environment.

    As far as the Utopia comment goes, Utopia doesn’t exist and in my opinion is just a red hearing. These ideas are so good that maybe they seem like a Utopia in comparison. Technocracy was formed in the early 1930’s. So StarTrek sounds like Technocracy, not the other way around. In fact, Gene Roddenberry knew of it.

    Both systems use DEMOCRACY to vote on social issues and Science for TECHNICAL issues. Asking me is a very clumsy way to get the info when it is so eloquently presented on the sites I gave. I didn’t come here to argue for either REALLY. I just see our current system for what it is and had to make a comment about Martins great observation.

    I usually agree with Russel, but even the host of AE do not agree with each other 100% of the time. They do not treat each other like Narf treated me. I guess I was taken aback because I am such an Anti-Theist/Atheist/Skeptic, and was not expecting people to be so knee-jerk about legitimate scientific ideas. Especially since I have known of Technocracy since I was 19 years old (I am 47 now). My fault for that assumption, but I made it none the less.

  60. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Considering how many engineers Boeing has employed over the decades why should that particular fact be persuasive? L. Ron Hubbard was once in the navy, but that doesn’t lend much credence to his ideas, does it?

    See, the problem is that democracy requires politics where science requires honesty. I simply do not see how any democratic system could function valuing both. In our own systems data can be used to support any position, and every technical issue can also be viewed as a social one. Vaccinating children and teaching evolution, for example, should be a purely technical issues, correct? In theory, Marxism should also work, but in practice not everyone who ever tried it agreed to work altruistically. So, how does your system propose to first change human nature?

  61. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    projectp, paraphrase:

    Wage slavery is a thing. We’re still slaves.

    Narf, paraphrase:

    Wage slavery is not a thing. People can rise up out of their starting economic class.

    I want to argue for a happy middle ground. Lucky people can rise out of their starting economic class, but it’s rare, and often not based on talent nor motivation. I like the wage slavery term and that way of looking at the world. However, I recognize that our current situation, wage slavery, is far preferrable to actual slavery. However again, I think that we need to think in terms of wage slavery, in terms of radical Marxism, in order to recognize and intelligently discuss the problems with the current system, in order that we might improve it.

    PS:
    Quoting projectp:

    Scientifically designed system like Technocracy or the Venus project

    Those are pipedreams by liars or people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Why do you have to say something so obviously wrong-headed? /sigh. It makes it difficult for me to discuss real solutions to our real world problems.

    The scientist/inventor who created it is about as far as anyone can get from crackpot. Look into yourself and you will see his credentials are stellar.
    Just off the top of my head he invented the airbag and worked for Boeing among many other things.

    Regardless, the Venus Project is a crackpot idea. Smart and educated people can have crackpot beliefs. Like Newton. Most of his work was about bible codes and such.

  62. projectp says

    I know what argument from authority is. it is when you say X is true because Y has said so and Y has Authority in Z field.
    I was not saying that read above.

    Anyway.

    kudlak,
    you said: “I simply do not see how any democratic system could function valuing both. ” Argument from ignorance.

    EnlightenmentLiberal,

    What is your definition of a crackpot theory? Explain why the venus project meets that definition.

  63. projectp says

    EnlightenmentLiberal ” However, I recognize that our current situation, wage slavery, is far preferableto actual slavery.”

    It’s IS preferable to both the master and slave. But there will come a time when the human slave becomes more of a burden to the master and the robotic ones become the preferred choice. Using a the system we have now this will be disastrous for all the human wage slaves/slaves.

  64. Narf says

    @70 – projectp
    Heh, why do you think it’s worth their effort to give you a detailed explanation of anything?

    Dude, EL, quoted an explicit argument from authority which you committed, which is central to your argument:

    Just off the top of my head he invented the airbag and worked for Boeing among many other things.

    You described an argument from authority, in such a way that it fits all of the authorities you’re holding up. A freaking engineer has no expertise in designing political and economic systems. In fact, engineers are often well known for not knowing how people work, for good reason.

    The fact that you brainwashed yourself into this stuff over the course of 20 years, even admitting that we’ll have to do the same before we can have a valid opinion of the proposition — by which I assume you mean swallowing it uncritically, as you do — does not particularly impress me. Seriously, man, read what you’re writing and try to grasp how you’re coming off to other people. You come across like a religious or political zealot. I don’t expect you to admit anything to me, but try to do a little self-analysis, for your own good.

  65. projectp says

    Narf i will say one more time that i am done with you, just to be clear.
    You have no idea what you are talking about in almost every single sentence.
    You are the dictionary definition of arrogant.

    Do not expect any more replies from me to you.

  66. Narf says

    Heh heh heh heh heh. And that’s about what I expected from you. You have no grasp of irony, do you? You make such beautiful use of it in your statements, as you just did here, while being completely oblivious to the fact.

    I’m not going to particularly miss responses from you. I gain far more by talking about you, with the other grownups on here, rather than speaking to you directly. I think we’ve already plumbed the shallow depths of what you have to contribute.

  67. kudlak says

    @projectp
    It’s my opinion, and I based it upon our shared experience of democratic systems, particularly the American one. All politicians claim to be acting for the better good, but how many individual examples of politicians can you point to who put their personal aims and values aside in the way your system would require?

    This is why utopias never pan out. Human selfishness and self-interest always get in the way, which is why I cannot see politicians ever following what scientists direct unquestioningly, at least not in any democratic system. No wonder, since the introductory video for the Venus Project specifically states that it is not a democracy. It’s not like anything that has ever been tried in human governance and remains purely theoretical. Why do you have faith in it then?

    fyi- From what I can gather Fresco worked for Douglas not Boeing and many of his key designs were deemed too impractical to actually be built. Same for all his planned cities and such, although an actual Star Trek artist did render one of his designs onto a background mat. Arguably Gene Roddenberry proved to be a more successful futurist.

  68. projectp says

    Neither system Technocracy or the Venus project has ANY politicians.
    Once again Utopia is a red herring, there is no system that would ever meet that definition IMO.
    Yes the venus project states no democracy, but Technocracy does. They are slightly different ideas that I am not married too. I just like them better than the primitive MAN MADE system we have now.

    here is the study guide to Technocracy. http://www.technocracyincorporated.org/technocracy-study-course.html
    I challenge anyone here to point out anything unscientific in the study guide.

    As far as the Venus project goes, I agree the design is very loose at the moment but I like the idea. The problem with it IMO is that since it is a resource based economy it would require a very large amount of the world to start it off.
    Getting from here to there would be a big problem and probably require the collapse of our current system.
    But once again I still the idea much more than what we have now. Technocracy on the other is very well layed out and documented.

  69. kudlak says

    @Narf
    To me, it almost seems as though this Fresco guy designed his buildings and cities, and then asked himself “What kind of futuristic society would be worthy of such a place?” thus going ahead and designing that as well. There’s more than just a trace of science fiction in his ideas, but like Roddenberry’s Federation, people will have to change their fundamental driving forces and all agree to act altruistically in order for it to work. Since we definitely do not live amongst such people these days, and may never live amongst them, these ideas are rather impractical. Fun to dream about, but unlikely to ever come to pass.

  70. projectp says

    @kudlak

    The system itself would change the driving forces, you have a fundamental misunderstanding.

  71. Narf says

    @77 – kudlak

    To me, it almost seems as though this Fresco guy designed his buildings and cities, and then asked himself “What kind of futuristic society would be worthy of such a place?” thus going ahead and designing that as well.

    Heh.  Interesting way of looking at it, yeah.  I guess that’s the sort of thing we should expect from an engineer with a penchant for societal planning, if you follow through with the stereotypes.

    The biggest thing that struck me, when I glanced through it briefly, was an intense sense of naivete, similar to what I get when listening to an anarcho-capitalist libertarian.  They’re similar in their failure, although in opposite directions.

    Given the people we have to work with, given the nature of politics, the only way to implement anything of the sort would be with a complete revolution and a complete rebuild of the governmental scaffolding from the ground up.  Even then, the idea of divorcing the scientific end of things from politics is pretty simpleminded.  Okay, so you have a bunch of scientists deciding things within a certain scope, instead of politicians.  How does that do anything but turn the people in those scientific posts into another sort of politician?  A politician is defined by what they do, engaging in politics, not by the label you assign to them.

    And this guy just keeps saying things that make me laugh. Take these sentences in his last comment:

    I just like them better than the primitive MAN MADE system we have now.

    Man made, as opposed to …
    I’m not familiar with any naturally-occurring political systems, unless you wish to define a small pack of social animals in such a way.

    I challenge anyone here to point out anything unscientific in the study guide.

    How is that a valid challenge?  There are plenty of things that are ‘scientific’ but which are completely wrongheaded and incorrect.

    This guy seems like a science fetishist, rather than someone who actually understands science.

  72. kudlak says

    @projectp
    How are leaders selected in these systems then?

    In what sense are these systems not man-made? Were they discovered naturally etched upon some rock, or something?

    By your own admission you like the IDEA of these systems. Well, I like the IDEA of the Federation of Planets too, but all ideas seem great until someone tries to make them a reality. Until that happens it’s all just pie in the sky, isn’t it?

    A technocracy seems like an idea for a company dealing with machines or livestock, but governments mainly deal with people. Who’s going to deal with citizens in a technocracy? Unless everyone just magically comes to trust whatever the scientists and engineers tell them, somebody will have to convince the ordinary people that their decisions are actually best, and that would require politicians, wouldn’t it?

    There have been governments with elements of it, but the most cited example of a technocracy is the Soviet Union, which leads to the question: How do you ensure that the technical experts being selected aren’t put in those positions solely because they happen to agree with the leadership? In almost any field you can get “experts” disagreeing with one another. Who gets to decide which experts to trust?

  73. kudlak says

    @projectp
    But how can the system ever hope to be put in place without a change in the driving forces first? You’re putting the cart before the horse, as they say.

    Gotta go for now.
    TTFN

  74. projectp says

    Well, there is no system that is perfect this one is horrible. One of the many problems i have run into when talking about these ideas is people seem to think that the current system is a natural system rather than a man made one thus putting it on some kind of pedestal. It is important to not do that. I have a love for science and these are in that direction rather than a philosophy of money created by banks and loaned to us at interest.

    My definition of Science is a methodology for finding the most probable.
    I think it would be eye-opening to read the Technocracy study course. But I have said about as much as I care to say on this topic. The information is out there for you guys to take or leave.

    Narf is a problem for me. He gets enjoyment out of putting other people down ” I gain far more by talking about you”
    he needs validation by proving someone else is wrong or putting them down. ” I think we’ve already plumbed the shallow depths of what you have to contribute.” This type of language is not an adult conversation.

  75. Narf says

    @82 – projectp
    Dude, you’re the one who came in with the attitude. Don’t try to put it on me, because you can’t deal with people pointing out how wrongheaded your arguments are.

    The bit you quoted was from after I had already given up on reasoning with you. Don’t take that quote and try to apply it to my disposition when you first showed up. That’s dishonest as hell.

  76. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I wrote a takedown of one of projectp’s two links, because I was bored, and just to ensure that projectp is as full of shit as I expected.

    tl;dr Technocracy Inc is full of shit. As expected.

    Full takedown:

    So, I poked around on the website looking for a description of “what is a Technocracy?”, and I found this doc.

    http://www.technocracyincorporated.org/technocracy-study-course.html

    It looks like my best bet.

    What kind of ass backwards monkey releases a manifesto in via a web script only and not via a PDF? That’s fucking annoying.

    Page 5. Because they use the word “puerile” and because it’s a fun word, I’ll describe page 5 as containing a puerile discussion of “money” and “price”. Money and prices are invariably involved with complex social phenomena, and the author of this doc doesn’t like that. On page 6, the author goes so far as to say that the word “price” completely lacks a common usage. What the fuck author? Further, the author complains that many economists often take hundreds of pages to give their own nuanced but distinct and unique definitions of the words “price” and “value”. And yet, the author of this doc does exactly the same thing over the next few hundred pages. What the fuck author?

    Page 10. Curious they go through this quite verbose definitions of terms, philosophy, epistemology, etc., but they don’t define “analytic” and “synthetic”.

    Onward is just the most bizarre primer – if I can use that word – a kind of “introduction to modern scientific knowledge 101”. Maybe it’s weird because it’s trivial to me because I happened to be rather educated. I don’t know. Still – what the hell does this have to do with economics and politics? Will the doc make a connection? I’m just skimming the science primer.

    Still skimming. Around page 95 to 100 it gets into some economics. Nothing flagrantly outrageous. I might even offer tentative agreement.

    Page 121. Oooh, examining the idea of private property. I’m piqued. Very Marxist analysis. I very much appreciate.

    Page 124. I don’t like how the author more or less defines the word “value” to mean “price that can be achieved at market”. “Market value” e.g. “market price” is not “value”. Those are very different things. Unfortunately, it’s going to color some of the later discussion.

    Page 125. During my first read-through, I guessed it was a gold standard nut. Later I confirmed that it was someone who believed in the gold standard. However, I actually made it quite a bit farther without realizing that this thing was fucking written in 1934. With that in mind, it makes sense why the author would use such an esoteric definition of “money”. It’s because the United States was still on the motherfucking gold standard when the doc was written.

    I was going to complain about modern gold standard crackpots, but that’s not applicable to the author of the doc. On the other hand, it says a lot that this modern Technocracy Inc has this century old document as their first document on their “documents” web page. It also says something about the ignorance of the person in this thread because they are a supporter of the organization – ignorant of the practices of the organization, or knowing about these positions and just ignorant about how the (modern) world really works.

    In short, the author defines “money” according to accidents of its historical creation and not according to the modern, e.g. 2015, usage of money and the word “money”. In short, the author defines money as a debt from the bank to the person who quote unquote “deposits” money. That’s a totally fair and accurate description of money – from like a few hundred years even before 1934. No matter what relevance or accuracy it might have had in 1934, it is wholly inappropriate to define the word “money” in that way today.

    The problem I have with gold standard nuts is that they do not realize that gold is just another kind of fiat currency. It’s not paper, but it’s still a fiat currency. The defining characteristic of a fiat currency is that the currency itself has little to no value – except for what goods you might be able to obtain by trading the currency. Sure gold has some use in electronics and jewelry, but that’s like saying that paper money has some use because you can burn it to heat your house. The vast majority of the value of gold and paper money is because other people will trade other things with instrinsic value, consumable value, in exchange for the fiat currency. Even a gold standard is a form of fiat currency, and gold standard nuts don’t get that.

    Now, to be fair, there is one important difference between a gold standard fiat currency and a paper fiat currency. It’s harder to print gold than to print paper, which means production of fiat currency is harder, with all of the usual implications on inflation, etc.

    All of this is IMHO rather amazing when put side by side with the Marxist critique of private property. It takes a special and rare kind of crackpot.

    Page 126. Based on the forgoing bullshit definitions, they have an equally bullshit definition of “price system”. There’s a lot of bullshit connotations.

    Around page 132. It’s still really irritating that they have defined “money” as a form of debt, rather than the correct modern definition of “fiat currency”.

    Page 133. Ugg, I know this is an accurate history of how paper money came to be, but that has little to no bearing on a proper definition concerning modern national fiat money of the United States. I know that the United States dollar might have been gold standard in 1934, but today is not 1934. Why am I reading this again?

    Page 137. Why can’t I easily copy-paste from the doc? Oh that’s right, because the web site creators are fuckers who can’t bother to publish this doc in a pdf format. Fuckers.

    We have already shown that money, bank deposits, bonds and various other forms of negotiable paper are all generically the same, namely, debt. While in 1933 the total long and short-term debts of the United States were estimated to have been 138 billion dollars, only about 9 billion dollars of this was represented by actaul money in the form of gold, coins of various metal, …

    On my first read-through, this was my confirmation that the author is a gold standard nut. I didn’t realize quite yet that the author wrote the doc in 1934…

    Page 143.

    Among the most continuously operated parts of our industrial equipment are the electric power system and the telephone system. The load factor on the power system in any but special branches rarely equals 40 percent of its productive capacity.

    Because I happen to be a self-styled expert on this claim, I can call bullshit. It’s really a obscure point, but this makes it sound like we have overbuilt like 60% of our power generation, and that it idles about 60% of the time on average over all equipment. Bull. Shit. Factually it is true, but in context it’s a lie. The fact of the matter is that energy demand fluctuates greatly from day to night in most places. In many places, it’s a swing from 1x to 2x load every day. In order to serve that load, we have to build out enough power production to match that load, which means that 50% or so goes idle during the low-point in the daily demand curve. When you add in 10% downtime for maintenance (which is around normal for any kind of industry), I suppose that’s how they reached the 60% number. However, it’s complete and utter bullshit to pretend that 60% of the power plants we have are just sitting idle, and they serve no purpose, and we could get rid of them if we just had people working 24 hours per day instead of only 1 shift per day, which is the clear implication of the doc. Again, bullshit.

    Page 145. Goddamnit. It was sounding good and interesting, and then they went back to more gold standard bullshit. Son of a. Thus far, it’s contained equal parts brilliance and utter foolishness.

    Page 149. It conflating man-hours of production with kilowatt hours of production by mechanical motion of a mere electrical motor, and then argues that of course robotic replacements are cheaper than people on the basis of the cheapness of electricity vs human labor. Unless and until we get good A.I., this is another bullshit equivalence. Humans can do tasks that machines cannot, no matter how much money energy you throw at the problem.

    Page 149-150. I have a similarly pessimistic friend who buys into bullshit of this kind. The basic argument is: As robots get better, and automatic gets better, etc., human employment will lessen, and wages will lessen, and most humans will find themselves without purchasing power. The answer is simple: Motherfucking progressive income taxes, progressive death taxes, and some kind of guaranteed minimum income scheme. Problem motherfucking solved. I agree that this seems to be a serious problem absent government action to fix it, and I am worried that the problem will get worse until we can fix the Republican problem. However, there is an immediate and obvious solution in the current framework: progressive income taxes, progressive death taxes, and a guaranteed minimum income.

    When are they going to end the critique and get to the specifics of their crackpot system? I am looking forward to ripping that apart.

    Page 152. Oh boy. Here it is. I was hoping their esoteric – and wrong – definition of money wouldn’t come back to bite me. However, here we find an argument that money economics cannot persist because they’re wrongly conflating fiat currency with debt. Again, son of a.

    Page 156-157. The author speaks as if there’s a secret cabal in government which wants to ensure growing populations so that their profits will continue for the next 50 or 100 years. There is no such cabal. Almost no investor thinks on that long of a time horizon. Hell – that’s part of the current problem that the investor’s time horizon is too short.

    Page 159 – 160. It discusses a IMHO serious problem: The purposeful and planned reduction of product lifetimes in order to increase sales.

    The doc then talks about a case where there was government action to kill a competitor who offered a quality product. There, the problem is government action, not free markets. The doc correctly identifies the problem as a tariff, but then blames the free market for the failure to produce a quality product. What the fuck?

    The problem of purposeful decreased product lifetimes is a real problem. It relates to the problem that the investor’s consumer’s time horizon is too small, and his information is too incomplete. However, I think here that government action is the answer.

    Page 163. It’s around here that I realized I was reading a really old document. What tipped me off was the phrase “the Late War”. I stopped and looked for a publication date or copyright date. I found copyright 1934, which means it’s not even referring to World War 2, but World War 1. Oh yea! I’m reading a document from about a century ago! Why am I doing that again?

    The publication date partially explains the gold standard nuttiness of the author. It also explains the author’s fascination with the year 1929, which I found to be quite odd before knowing the publication date.

    Fuck. I gave up around here, and started skimming again to see if I can find any details on what is a Technocracy.

    Random: I noticed that the chapters are called “lessons”. How pretentious.

    Ok, shortly thereafter it got into the details of a Technocracy. Or at least that’s what the title says.

    Page 209

    At the present and in the future, since the hours of labor in the productive process have already become unimportant, and shall become increasingly less important with time, any distribution of an abundance of production, based upon the man-hours of human participation can only lead to a failure of the distributive mechanism and industrial stagnation.

    Italics in original.

    When it says “the hours of labor in the productive process have already become unimportant”, my reply is: bullshit. Has this asshat ever worked in an factory of any kind? It was bullshit in 1934, and it’s still bullshit today. Yes many jobs are automated, but we are far, far from reaching a point where the word “unimportant” would be an accurate description. It relates to my earlier complaint when the doc measured the usefulness of a human in mere output energy terms, directly compared it to an electrical engine, and conflated the two. Whereas, humans are intelligent and can do many tasks that machines cannot, and I don’t see A.I. replacing all of these tasks anytime soon. And I’m a professional computer scientist (read: they pay me to write code), so I have some educated beliefs on this topic.

    Page 209

    We have on this [EL: North American] Continent a population that is more nearly homogeneous than that of any other Continent.

    What the fuck am I reading? By what measure? Apparently by ignoring black people living in segregation. Also apparently by ignoring the other immigrant classes and disenfranchised races of fucking 1934. So, I think it’s fair to call the author a racist asshat as well, or at least incredibly blind to his (probably) white privilege. Asshat. I did not know this. This is good to know for future discussions.

    This is especially relevant because an earlier lesson chapter discussed what we might call Pavlov conditioning of humans and how human behavior is shaped almost entirely by upbringing and experience (itself a questionable claim). In context, the author is trying to make the point that the people of North America have a common life experience, and thus can work together in society, as opposed to other continents and areas with wildly different cultural norms. But again, I think you can only make an argument that stupid by pretending that America of 1934 is white, Christian, and male.

    I understand that Marxism was probably new in his time, and ideas like “government paid guaranteed minimum income schemes” might not be widely known. However, the ignorance of the author from fucking 1934 is not an excuse to the person in this thread to fucking give this document when today ideas like “government paid guaranteed minimum income schemes” are relatively common knowledge, and the solutions to our problems do not require a massive change to the existing social structure.

    Page 212. Full utopia pipedreams ahoy!

    Page 213. Fuck. The author gives the Bell Telephone company as an example or analogy for this technocracy. The author says that people are appointed, promoted and demoted, to their jobs, according to their merit. The author says that the shareholders and execs are unimportant. The fuck they’re unimportant. Who promotes the board? The fucking shareholders. On what basis? According to their ability to make them money. The shareholders would then be technical experts in making money, and they appoint board members according to their technical merit in doing their job. You cannot simply discount the appointment of the board as unimportant. That was a vital part of the functioning of the Bell Telephone company. You at least need some replacement. In normal governments, the analogous process is the election system.

    Quoting a bit:

    Such are some of the basic properties of any competent functional organization. It has no political precedents. It is neither democratic, autocratic, nor dictatorial.

    Italics in original.

    My fucking ass. It is a textbook definition of dictatorial. The shareholders are the dictators. They nominate people to the board to make them money. It’s exactly like a dictator in every important way (for the purposes of this discussion). Most shareholders are wholly self interested and they appoint underlings to bring them material wealth, exactly like how most government dictators are wholly self interested and they appoint underlings to bring them material wealth. What the fuck author, what the fuck.

    Page 217. Fuck. I’m seeing a system with a similar fatal flaw as naive communism, which is that without motivation to work, work will not be done, and that is why wages are an indispensable part of a functioning society. That is at least until we get magic intelligent slave robots that can do the work for us, and at that point I would have serious ethical concerns about the rights of the magic intelligent robot slaves. In other words, this can never happen, and we will always have wages. Shit sucks. Sorry.

    Actually, if we had Star Trek replicators, then perhaps we could do away with wages. IMHO, that’s about the only remotely coherent option available where wages are no longer needed. We would need magic universal constructors aka Star Trek replicators, and they would have to be cheap. Cheap to build, maintain, and operate. Cheap in terms of human maintenance and available energy. Then we might not need anything like conventional wages. However, I think the science we have now is pretty good that such things are a physical impossibility, and thus we will forever need wages.

    Page 218. In his ideal scheme:

    Every member of the Constabulary is subject to transfer from any part of the country to any other part on short notice.

    How horrifying – if only for the police themselves. Why include such a seemingly arbitrary measure? He mentioned that most / many police are owned by political machines earlier in the same paragraph. Is this policy of moving police on short notice a means to ensure the police cannot be captured by political machines? I do not know.

    Page 219. Finally, the crux of the entire scheme. I was reading the entire doc just for this:

    The only exception to this procedure of appointment from above occurs in the case of the Continental Director due to the fact that there is no one higher. The Continental Director is chosen from among the members of the Continental Control by the Continental Control. Due to the fact that this Control is composed of only some 100 or so members, all of whom know each other well, there is no one better fitted to make this choice than they.

    Ok. I’m done. The political system he proposes is basically my naive understanding of the modern Chinese Communist party. You can rise up in the party according to promotions from above, and the cabal that is the top of the party is free to rule according to its whims with zero checks on its power and with zero accountability to the people.

    Fuck this is foolish. I feel foolish for spending several hours reading and skimming this far. I leave this to the readers here as a thorough takedown which you can enjoy without having to read the stupid doc yourself.

  77. projectp says

    Wow I really hit the bullseye!

    Here we go again with the arrogance. “The bit you quoted was from after I had already given up on reasoning with you”

    Narf thinks that his reasoning is superior (a common theme with him on FTB’s ) and that if you do not acknowledge it you deserve to be treated like scum.

  78. projectp says

    EnlightenmentLiberal,

    This is how I know you didn’t really read the document or at least understand it.
    At no point does Technocracy advocate using gold. That is still a price system.

    Technocracy proposed using Energy accounting.
    Since everything in the economy can be broken down into kilogram calories, one can calculate the required energy for a balanced load on the system.

    The projected amount of credits would be evenly distributed amongst everyone in the Technate.
    Before you start crying Marxism etc there are some very important differences between money and energy credits.

    1. Credits can not be hoarded and expire at the end of the balanced load period.
    2. Credits can not be given/traded to anyone from anyone else.
    The credits are for accounting so a balanced load on the system is maintained.

    We do not need replicators. because we can already produce more than we can consume. but you can not sell sand on an endless beach.

    energy credits solve many of the price systems problems.
    Planned obsolescence, False scarcity (ie paying farmers to not grow food)
    work for the sake of income. the incentive would be on eliminating work.

    It has been estimated that if we employed our current technology to our system now we could eliminate almost 90% of all jobs. That is a great thing but not possible in a price system.
    So no matter how advanced we become money will always hold us back.

    You mentioned AI. AI is now performing surgery and other task people never dreamed possible.
    Food preparation could be automated, no more chance of people like Narf spitting on your food or dropping it intentionally because you made them upset by not agreeing with them.

    Technocracy’s Plan has been around for a long time, I mentioned that in the opening. now it is some great surprise?
    I am beginning to become convinced a few of you are not reading anything I say. Allt of the points I considered the most important were completely glossed over and ignored.

  79. Monocle Smile says

    Holy fuck.

    Technocracy proposed using Energy accounting.
    Since everything in the economy can be broken down into kilogram calories, one can calculate the required energy for a balanced load on the system

    This is what we’re dealing with, folks. You’ve taken a sometimes decent, subject-dependent analogy to a fucking insane extreme. Our ability to measure energy falls far, far short of what you imagine, and that’s not even getting into the nutty stuff.

    EL, your resolve is impressive.

  80. projectp says

    holy shit! This!! —> “My fucking ass. It is a textbook definition of dictatorial. The shareholders are the dictators. They nominate people to the board to make them money. It’s exactly like a dictator in every important way (for the purposes of this discussion). Most shareholders are wholly self interested and they appoint underlings to bring them material wealth, exactly like how most government dictators are wholly self interested and they appoint underlings to bring them material wealth. What the fuck author, what the fuck.”

    There would be no shareholders or making money or anything you just mentioned! You really do not understand what the system is advocating at all. It is a starting point that would need to be updated of course but a great starting point.
    the current system is closing in on a Technological brick wall.

    I never advocated using Technocracy’s plan as it was in 1933 I said it was a great idea and all systems should change according to the current technological and environmental states. But we MUST recognize that a price system of any kind or better stated, commodity valuation will become increasingly at odds with Technology.

  81. projectp says

    Monocle Smile,

    it would not be hard to calculate the energy cost of the production of any given item. some of the people on this board are about as closed minded as I have ever witnessed, Rude, pompous and self-righteous.

  82. Monocle Smile says

    @projectprojection

    If this is as bad as you’ve ever seen, then you really need to leave your mom’s house. This is vanilla-flavored trolling and nothing more. Again, you’re not special. We’ve seen dozens of turds roll in, drop off crackpot ideas, overreact badly to criticism, and then call the denizens of this board “the worst people ever.”

    And you’re just plain wrong. We can ballpark the “energy cost” of certain items, at best. There’s this thing called “entropy” that you don’t think exists. There’s also some hilarious problems with these “energy credits,” mostly that you’re utterly delusional if you think people wouldn’t immediately find ways to subvert the system.

  83. projectp says

    Just shows your ignorance. I love how you think you can read my mind. The energy cost would be calculated to the best of our technological ability. step down off your high horse.

    Your statement is just as bad as Sye Ten Bruggencate saying “do you absolutely know blah blah blah”.
    Calling me a turd really? aren’t you better than that? Telling me toughen up and just accept you’re rude remarks is justified how?

  84. Monocle Smile says

    @projectpostal

    That’s a nice non-response, and the regulars here didn’t start the “rude remarks.” We offered skepticism and asked for more information, and you responded with “BAH, YOU STUPID STUPIDHEADS NEED TO WASTE MORE OF YOUR LIVES STUDYING MY PRECIOUS LITTLE IDEAS.” What exactly did you expect?

    You know, the way you reference freethoughtblogs specifically in so many of your comments and convey your faux surprise at “close-mindedness” makes me think you came here with an ax to grind. Wouldn’t be the first time this happened.

  85. Narf says

    @85 – projectp

    Wow I really hit the bullseye!

    Not even close, no. You’ve been trying to read all sorts of insane shit into everything I’ve said so far. I’m sure you’ll continue to do so, and I can’t stop you. Have fun with that.

    Here we go again with the arrogance. “The bit you quoted was from after I had already given up on reasoning with you”
    Narf thinks that his reasoning is superior (a common theme with him on FTB’s ) and that if you do not acknowledge it you deserve to be treated like scum.

    Not really, no. I’m happy to point out where your reasoning completely jumps the rails, and I’m happy to let others judge what I say, on their own. You’re the only one disagreeing with my analysis, and considering the sort of crackpot stuff you’re pushing and the way you think logic works, I don’t particularly value your opinion.

    I can’t please everyone, but at the moment, that mostly means you. So, I’ll continue to correspond with those others around here who are reasonable. If you’re capable of responding to my criticism, you have yet to demonstrate it. That puts you pretty firmly in the troll camp, so you get the dismissive tone deserving of that sort of commentator.

    Besides, I thought you were done responding to me?

  86. projectp says

    Monocle Smile,

    You are just plain wrong, my surprise is genuine. I never called anyone a “stupidhead” I avoid name calling as much as possible, it just doesn’t help at all. Believe me, I find you and Narfs arguments absolutely assinine. And a complete ignorance of what the ideas are even after attempting to read them, you failed miserably.

  87. Narf says

    @94 -pp
    You can continue posturing as much as you like, man.  If you can’t address a single issue we’ve brought up, no one here is going to have any respect for you … going into the negatives, actually, with the way you’re posturing over your imagined logical-victories.

    What are you hoping to gain by continuing this? You’re the one here pushing something, and you’ve failed to convince anyone, as far as I can see.

  88. projectp says

    it was not my intention to come here and talk about social engineering. Scroll up to my first post and was it. I agree with Martin and was so glad someone finally said something to Russell on the subject that i had to join. I have never read these blogs I have just been an avid Fan of the Atheist experience for a very long time. I have always been an Atheist and was brought up in a Baptist home but my mother could never convince me or answer my questions. which at that age were mostly centered around gods omnipotence/omniscience and the paradoxes they create.

    Anyway I did address the rebuttals. some of them were astoundingly bad. like the one about a gold system, completely wrong. And it showed me that you guys think just like theist, you have come to a conclusion before an understanding. You guys are what i like to call knee jerk skeptics. People who do not believe ANYTHING outside of their box, no matter how wrong you are you think it must be “crackpot” because you didn’t know about it.

    The kind of people that are always at the end of a knowledge wave. There is a saying that goes. “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”
    It is sad that people put up such a fight when their world view is challenged.

  89. Narf says

    Quoting a definition of the argument from authority which perfectly describes what you were doing isn’t what I call addressing the issue. 😀

  90. projectp says

    When did I do that? I told you several times that I was not arguing that he is right because of his credentials.
    That would be an argument from authority. I gave his credentials to show he was someone worth at least hearing out not that they made him correct.

    These are my words, I did not plagiarize them ” it is when you say X is true because Y has said so and Y has Authority in Z field.”

    skipping over my rebuttal about the gold backed money AGAIN! Jesus fucking christ!

  91. Monocle Smile says

    WTF

    I gave his credentials to show he was someone worth at least hearing out not that they made him correct.

    That’s merely a variation on the argument from authority. It is still a logical fallacy.

    The kind of people that are always at the end of a knowledge wave

    Says the guy pushing a paper that was written in fuckin’ 1934 and has been completely forgotten.

    You guys are what i like to call knee jerk skeptics. People who do not believe ANYTHING outside of their box, no matter how wrong you are you think it must be “crackpot” because you didn’t know about it

    EL has proven you wrong. He went through Technocracy, and yet was even more dismissive after analyzing it. Also, you don’t seem to know what skepticism is.

  92. projectp says

    No it is not a variation of the fallacy. You simply do not understand what the fallacy states.
    If someone has some impressive credentials I am much more likely to hear them out. if you aren’t i don’t give shit, but that doesn’t make it a fallacy, it just doesn’t meet the criteria.

    EL was even further off after his lame attempt! He got so much wrong I gave up…
    I mean seriously the gold standard?!? Marxism?!? His reading comprehension is pitiful!

  93. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @projectp
    I admit that I was brief, and perhaps unclear in my post critiquing that doc. I of course recognize that the proposed technocratic government of that doc would not use the gold standard. Hell, it wouldn’t even use money. However, the doc did use the gold standard interpretation of money and the debt interpretation of money, which is flagrant bullshit for today’s money, and probably bullshit even in 1934. Try to keep up.

    All that matters right now is the political system of the technocracy. According to the doc I reviewed – the first doc in the “documents” section one of your links might I add – according to that doc, the political system is more or less identical to the modern Chinese Communist Party rule over mainland China. Specifically, it advocates having an unelected cabal of about 100 people who vote for president, and the president in term has sole power to nominate people to the cabal (and presumably remove people from the cabal as well), and the doc has the unmitigated gall to say this is not dictatorship. I call complete shenanigans.

    Now, if you want to distance yourself from that document, ok. I want you to describe the political system of your version of technocracy. I want to know who determines the energy price of a good. I want to know who controls the police and courts and judges. I want to know who controls the military. I want to know how these people get in that political position – by appointment, by general election, etc. If they are appointed by another position, I want to know how someone gets that political position – by appointment, by general election, etc.

    IMAO, your only options are a general public election like we have now, or some form of dictatorship such as advocated by the reviewed technocracy document.

    There would be no shareholders or making money or anything you just mentioned! You really do not understand what the system is advocating at all. It is a starting point that would need to be updated of course but a great starting point.
    the current system is closing in on a Technological brick wall.

    They would control the police, the army. You don’t think that they would try to use this power for their own personal benefit? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s the first thing anyone should remember when designing a government.

    I never advocated using Technocracy’s plan as it was in 1933 I said it was a great idea and all systems should change according to the current technological and environmental states. But we MUST recognize that a price system of any kind or better stated, commodity valuation will become increasingly at odds with Technology.

    Again, you are the one who provided the link. If you don’t mean to stand by it, fine. What are you standing by? Please answer my earlier questions of this post.

    EL was even further off after his lame attempt! He got so much wrong I gave up…
    I mean seriously the gold standard?!? Marxism?!? His reading comprehension is pitiful!

    The document clearly endorses and uses gold standard crackpottery in its analysis of “Price Systems”. I can provide numerous page citations and quotes on demand.

    Also, page 121, continuing on page 122, of that document gives a perfect Marxist analysis and critique of private property. Go ahead and read it. And maybe brush up on your Marxism too if you don’t recognize page 121 of that doc as distinctly Marxist.

  94. projectp says

    Listen EL,

    The document was written in the 1930’s and is dated. To me, it is a starting point. Nothing more.
    It even says energy certificates because electronic credits were not even a thought at that time etc etc…
    I am concerned about the problems of money and technology. The two are at odds with each other.
    You are worried about corruption in a system that doesn’t even exist yet, while corruption is running rampant in our current system from the top to the bottom inside and out. Our fiat currency that is loaned to our government by the international bankers (the fed) at interest is a real and current problem, Ideas for change need to be discussed. Calling names and treating each other like shit is not going to get us anywhere. I am not a leader in any movement or anything else I am just a software developer (ironically at one of the largest banks in the world) trying to figure it all out.

    I have had many conversations with many people about this subject, but the worst by far has been here where I least expected such a pitiful understanding of the basic concepts. When I talk to scientist and others in academia they are the most receptive. Maybe I should just stick with them and not mention it anywhere else. Because I am not trying to carry a flag ATM. I keep repeating it but I just wanted to give Martin the props he deserved for correcting Russel, who is also an awesome guy. but even awesome guys are wrong sometimes. Show me someone who is right all the time and I will just call you a liar. You guys have been strawmaning the shit out of me. Arguing against positions I don’t have. So just take the information and disregard it or whatever you want i don’t care.

  95. Narf says

    @101 – EnlightenmentLiberal

    Again, you are the one who provided the link. If you don’t mean to stand by it, fine. What are you standing by? Please answer my earlier questions of this post.

    That’s why I kept asking him to freaking tell us what he’s proposing, instead of throwing links at us. He tried to send us off to read a freaking huge document, demanding that we meditate over it for 9 months.

    So, you come back with an analysis of it, and the response is, “The document was written in the 1930’s and is dated.”

    Heh heh heh. Nothing like running face-first into a prepared auto-straw-man fallacy, huh EL? Come on, PP, play fair, man.

  96. projectp says

    I have already answered in my previous post. but to clarify, for the last time, I agree with the basic idea that a new system should be implemented that replaces commodity valuation with a value that can be measured. Like energy, the kilogram calorie, Science can only be applied to things that can be measured. A system that can distribute the abundance that our technology can bring. Beyond that, it gets more vague, a democratic republic but not a pure democracy. For instance in a pure democracy you can vote away all of your rights. Which is something I like about our Government, and to the republic for which it stands……inalienable rights etc…. Although the corruption of through money is eroding things there as well.

    So that is what I propose, it is a lot more vague, because I am not a social engineer and only like the ideas I have shared in parts. They are not perfect but once again, I think, great starting points.

    I think what you are ultimately asking me to provide is unreasonable seeing that once again, I am not a social engineer.
    So I sent you to the links because it was easier for me than having to type out a conversation I did not want to have.
    From my perspective I was just throwing some info at people i do not know and i wanted you to do with it what you wanted. If you have a problem with and it nags you that much contact The Venus project or Technocracy Inc. I am not affiliated with either. I hope that is fair enough for you.

  97. Monocle Smile says

    I agree with the basic idea that a new system should be implemented that replaces commodity valuation with a value that can be measured. Like energy, the kilogram calorie

    Not really interested, and your petulant dismissal of the obvious problems I already brought up doesn’t change them.

    I think what you are ultimately asking me to provide is unreasonable seeing that once again, I am not a social engineer.
    So I sent you to the links because it was easier for me than having to type out a conversation I did not want to have

    This is disingenuous behavior. Hell, this is troll behavior.

    Ideas for change need to be discussed. Calling names and treating each other like shit is not going to get us anywhere

    This is also troll behavior. Get off your imaginary soapbox.

    I have had many conversations with many people about this subject, but the worst by far has been here where I least expected such a pitiful understanding of the basic concepts

    Dude, you haven’t demonstrated that you know anything about anything. EL picked apart a document from your crappy link, and all you did was whine and boast some more about how much smarter you are than everyone. Seriously, it’s like you’re severely devoid of human contact and don’t understand how to behave.

  98. Monocle Smile says

    @PP

    I mean, here’s an easy, easy problem to spot. It wouldn’t matter one shit that you use “energy credits” because for most goods, there are multiple methods of production. Some are more energy-efficient than others. So you still have a variable price, and you’d need “speculators” to help determine losses due to entropy to factor into the price. Then you’ll get producers who lie about the “energy cost” of their good, and because (despite your childish insistence) we can’t actually precisely measure the “energy cost” of a good, who’s going to hold them accountable? Even if it WERE possible to measure things that accurately, who’s checking?

  99. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So that is what I propose, it is a lot more vague, because I am not a social engineer and only like the ideas I have shared in parts. They are not perfect but once again, I think, great starting points.

    Someone famous once said “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;”. I have no idea what you are proposing. You are speaking only in vague generalities, and not in concrete plans. Until such time that you present an actual plan for evaluation, I cannot agree or disagree. I can only question, and in severe cases, ridicule.

    So I sent you to the links because it was easier for me than having to type out a conversation I did not want to have.

    Then what conversation do you want to have? I thought this was about proposing a new system whereby technocrats would be in charge of the economy. If you don’t want to talk about that, then what do you want to talk about? This is a ludicrous double standard.

    For example, I will offer a counter-proposal. I propose that we get some angels to come down from heaven, and these angels should be placed in charge of our government. Angels, after all, have the good subtype. That means that they are are literally composed of elemental goodness. There is no better creature we could have in charge of our government. In fact, I seem to recall some writings from thousands of years ago that discussed ways that we might bring forth and bind some angels to do our bidding. I suggest we start with the documentation commonly known as the Testament Of Solomon.

    If you think that’s ridiculous, how is your position any different? From my perspective, the idea that “we should just put the smart and technically competent people in charge” is in the same neighborhood on the scale of pipedream-ness as my proposal to use a planar binding spell to force angels to run our government.

    If you want us to take your proposals seriously, you need to start offering specific and serious proposals.

    If you have a problem with and it nags you that much contact The Venus project or Technocracy Inc. I am not affiliated with either. I hope that is fair enough for you.

    Similarly, I am neither affiliated with the endless Abyss, nor the Nine Hells, nor the celestial realms of Celestia, Elysium, Arborea, and so forth. If you have specific questions, I suggest you bring it up with the students of the dark binding arts, and for questions specifically regarding the constitution and character of angels, I believe your nearest Greek Orthodox priest is your best bet. /snark

  100. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    But really, without the snark, my problem is this. You seem to want to focus on what happens after we put the technocrats in charge, and how wonderful it will be with technocrats in charge. My angel example is meant to exemplify the problem. After we put the angels in charge, life would just be peachy. However, that’s skipping all of the hard work – how exactly do you get the technocrats angels in charge? That’s the hard part.

    Many of the individual analyses and critiques of the technocracy doc are applicable and correct. We could create solutions for many of those critiques in the current system, where the current system is a government, partially elected and partially not, with a fiat currency economy, free markets, but with government regulations, capitalism, but with some amount of wealth redistribution and socialism.

    In fact, I do not see a single obvious thing that could be accomplished in a technocracy which could not be accomplished in the current system. For example, purposefully creating low-lifetime products to increase sales. If we elected intelligent people to the United States congress and presidency, this problem could be solved with but a simple tax or regulation. The tax or other regulation would be precisely as complex to administer in the current government as it would be in a technocracy. The benefits would be the same. Adding a technocracy adds nothing to this discussion except for the assumed premise that angels technocrats are in charge. Hence why I tried to focus the conversation on the novel aspects of the technocracy. After all, you are the one who barged in here and started making claims about how great technocracies are.

  101. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    A couple other odds and ends:

    We do not need replicators. because we can already produce more than we can consume. but you can not sell sand on an endless beach.

    We still need human labor. No time in the foreseeable future will we need insignificant amounts of human labor.

    As long as we need human labor, we will need wages. This is an inescapable fact about human psychology.

    Off the top of my head, there seem to be but two ways to avoid this problem. 1- Universal constructors e.g. Star Trek replicators. 2- Sentient (robot) slaves. I do not see a third option.

    the incentive would be on eliminating work.

    Sounds great! I’m all for lessening the amount of required human labor. I worry slightly about a possible scenario of almost no human labor required causing apathy and depression in the population, but that’s a problem we can worry about when we get there.

    It has been estimated that if we employed our current technology to our system now we could eliminate almost 90% of all jobs.

    Citations please. Preferably citations of non-crackpots, but I’ll take what I can get.

    That is a great thing but not possible in a price system.
    So no matter how advanced we become money will always hold us back.

    Again, citations please. I’d even settle for an explanation why this is impossible in a “Price System”. Again, it seems to me that many of the reforms attributed to a technocracy could be done with the current system via government taxes and regulations in almost exactly the same way that the technocracy would do it.

    You mentioned AI. AI is now performing surgery and other task people never dreamed possible.

    Reality check. All of the sources I can find say that surgeons are using A.I.-assist tools. A.I. is not yet performing surgery with no human doctor. However, I grant that in the near future A.I. may perform some surgeries with no input from a human doctor. However, I also suspect that the human doctor will be required to be present to monitor the A.I. because say.. 5% of cases will require manual override.

    Also, frankly, performing surgeries is not that hard of a problem. Any individual problem you can name is not that hard of a problem. It’s the sum of all normal human activities which is a problem.

    Let’s consider a simple housekeeper. A google search says I could hire a human housecleaner for weekly service at 69 USD. Presumably they provide their own mops, brooms, and other cleaning tools. What would it take to do this without a human? Well, 500 USD for a Roomba, plus electricity costs for charging it, plus the periodic human intervention to clean and dispose of the accumulated stuff in the bag, and that’s just for cleaning the floors, which is just one small aspect to what a human housecleaner does. The human housecleaner appears to be a massive, massive monetary win.

    Now, I know you want to focus on energy costs, so let’s do that.

    Now, rather than talking out of my ass, I did some research into it. The reviewed technocracy doc does accurately describe humans as basically heat engines. It gives about 25% thermodynamic efficiency for the human heat engine, minus efficiency losses for sleeping and waking moments not spent working. I’m ok with that number. However, what you might not know is that most steel internal combustion engines have an average thermodynamic efficiency around 20%. Further, I’ve found real papers from real (e.g. non-crackpot) scientists, modern scientists too, which describe that the human gait, e.g. human walking, is about as energy efficient as you can get for a two-legged walking machine. Contrary to popular myth, humans are not that inefficient in terms of energy utilization. Evolution is pretty good for stuff like that.

    So, let’s talk about the housekeeper problem.

    While writing this, I discovered one particularly morbid problem with your claims. You want a society where no one has to work, or where the need to work is reduced as much as possible. Ok. In that hypothetical scenario, let’s look at the marginal energy costs to clean my house. “Marginal” is a technical economics term which means more or less “the incremental costs compared to some specified standard”. In this case, in the reference standard we are already feeding, watering, clothing, and otherwise caring for many humans. They’re presumably already spending lots of energy on recreational activities too. Why not require one of those humans to clean my house? The marginal energy cost to require a human to clean my house is far less than the marginal energy cost to design, build, test, rebuild, distribute, fuel, maintain, and recycle some robot(s) to clean my house. I’m not sure exactly what your position is, but I just want to throw out that fact.

    Now, as I mentioned above, any one simple task often is not that hard to write an A.I. to do correctly – most of the time. For example, we can write an algorithm for the Roomba to clean floors. It’s not that hard to get a 99% working solution, but of course it’s not trivial either. Now, imagine doing that for the 20+, 40+, I don’t even know how many separate activities that a housecleaner might regularly perform. Now increase that for the obscure tasks too that don’t always apply. That’s a lot of coding.

    I’m assuming we’re using simple hardcoded scripts, which is presumably what you’re advocating. Trust me. In other words, you are presumably not advocating what I might call “strong A.I.”, the ability for a human to teach one of these robots to perform a task in the same manner that you might teach a child to perform a task. If you’re arguing that we’re get strong A.I., then I need to give you another reality check, as a professional programmer, so I know what I’m talking about. Anyone who tells you that strong A.I. is just around the corner is completely full of shit. Frankly, if you want cheap A.I., then go have sex and have a kid. That’s what we’ve been doing for thousands of years at least, having kids to work on the farm.

    Ok, with this massive collection of hardcoded scripts, maybe we reach a 99% solution. What about the 1%? My central thesis is not “automation of all tasks is impossible”, nor “automation cannot decrease the need for human labor”. I am completely on board with the blindingly obvious position that automation can decrease the need for human labor (and very nearly always by increasing total energy usage). However, there are many tasks that realistic A.I. is simply not equipped to handle, including police, courts, politicians, artists of all kinds (including novelists, moviemakers, actors, etc.), and every sort of research and development. This is further compounded by the fact that for a huge plethora of use cases, hiring a human is money-cheaper and energy-cheaper than building, fueling, and maintaining a humanoid robot, even ignoring the R&D costs and the A.I. problems and costs.

    Again, as another example, there’s a reason why the military uses humans as foot soldiers and not robots. The U.S. military spares no expense in trying to save human lives, except for the goal of maintaining an actual fighting force. The moment that the average foot soldier and cop is replaced by independently functioning robots, then we can have this conversation about technocracy, and not before.

    Again, I have to emphasize that particular cop tasks can be automated. I can easily imagine in the near future automated cop cars with no humans at all pulling actual people over for speeding and issuing tickets. However, just like the housecleaning example, that’s just one small, small task in the suite of tasks that is part of being a cop, and against just like the housecleaning example, you still need human intervention in the 1% of cases, like what happens when a human doesn’t stop for the automated cop car and a car chase occurs.

    Maybe someone wants to give a gun to the robot, and program the robot to shoot people in certain circumstances. I am horrified. I am a programmer, and I know how this ends. I hope you have seen RoboCop (click me!) and understand what a miserable idea this actually is. Finally, the moment that we have a robot with A.I. that can perform all of the basic cop duties, I strongly suspect that this will require the creation of a fully sentient robot. I hope you’ve seen scifi like the Terminator series and the new Baltarstar Galactica series. Even at best, we will have created a sentient slave race. Maybe we’ll program them to like being slaves. However, as the fictional character Dr. Ian Malcolm once said, “life finds a way”. If these things are self replicating, and it appears that they are, then normal biological evolution controls, which means over enough time and with enough lack of human oversight, eventually these robots will become gray goo, and that would be bad. PS: We already have gray goo problem, except it’s green. Life is gray goo, and self replicating robots are life. Woe is to us if we do not stay on top of that shit and it becomes skynet. This is a serious concern.

    /rant

  102. kudlak says

    @projectp
    No system may be perfect, but ours may still be the best. Any person may rise and become successful in our society. There is no class system or elitism really. In point of fact, our system values the rise from the lower ranks above all and there are enough opportunities where anyone can take advantage of their talent, work hard, or simply luck into a desirable life. That’s better than any other system that has ever been tried IMHO.

    Humans are greedy, narcissistic and driven by self-interest, which is why I can’t see how your experts will be selected solely on the basis of their expertise. Invariably, when experts are chosen to serve governments they tend to be selected based on how much their opinion matches the ruling body. Even if your system began with the purist of intentions I can’t see how, over time, a certain dogma wouldn’t develop where only experts supporting the status quo are put in positions of influence. It’s happened in every other system. It’s happened because that’s human nature. Perhaps your system would best suit Vulcans?

  103. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Seems rather ironic that a site dedicated to having governments run by the technical experts did not have a technical expert around to tell them how best to publish their material, eh?

  104. projectp says

    Kudlak, You are wrong about human nature and the current system too. The current system pits human against human and cultivates greed. the top 300 have as much wealth as the bottom 3 billion.
    You think humans are greedy because it is incentivised.
    There would be no gain in supporting a status quo like there is now since everybody has an access to the abundance.
    No need to steal when everyone has more than they want or need. We can produce more than we can consume.
    Even now there are warehouses full of junk that no one wants to buy or can not buy, all that energy/resources WASTED.
    But waste is necessary for a price system to function in an environment of high technology, read below.

    El,

    I will give a couple of figures, not the 90% because you would just cry crackpot, and i am sick of hearing that crap.
    the first is on automation and article by MIT, certainly not “crackpot”.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
    many more came up that you would consider legit with a simple google search. As time goes by this will accelerate as we advance technology even more.

    As automation starts eliminating more jobs, and btw China is starting to lose jobs due to automation being cheaper than their labor + shipping, The labor force goes down and the amount of people able to buy those goods disappears.

    I said “So no matter how advanced we become money will always hold us back.”

    That is very obvious to me, but I will spell it out.
    We can make most every product we have last longer, not a little longer a LOT longer.
    Razor blades can have a coating that make them practically last forever without going dull. Light bulbs could be made to last much, much longer as well. there is a bulb the Centennial Bulb, the Longest burning Light Bulb in history. Now in its 114th year of illumination.

    If this planned obsolescence was not done it would be devastating for business. But the technologies are being held back top keep our money system going.

    these are just two simple examples and you can find planned obsolescence in pretty much every product made, Think Apple computer… The amount of waste I have just mentioned is staggering especially when you consider the finite fossil fuels used to make and distribute it all.

  105. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Actually, I found the PDF file in the left-hand column, so I guess they do have some geeks working for them.

    What I did find alarming is the map on the cover of the document. Do they really mean to unite all of North America with the top part of South America, I wonder?

  106. kudlak says

    @projectp
    It could also be argued that the top 300 created their wealth, and that the rest of us reap the benefits. Wealth is created by entrepreneurs who either create new products, or raise the value of natural resources through marketplace machinations. Get rid of them and you won’t have their wealth to redistribute.

    What you would have instead are governments controlling all production, but do you actually believe that this would have driven the computer race, or advanced aeronautics like Douglas, or Boeing, or whichever company it was that employed this guy? What advances the Soviets managed were largely stolen from our capitalist system. Without that, they would have failed before Stalin died. Did their system encourage and create the kind of technocrats you’d need for this to work? History tells us no.

    If no one need steal if they already have an abundance how do you explain all those famously rich people who grow their empires instead of just retiring? You think of it as greed, but isn’t it actually ambition? People naturally want to better themselves. You might as well say that nobody would work at getting a higher degree as high school is free, or nobody would bother to invent a better computer as there is already an abundance of them. Sure, it often leads to waste, but isn’t experimentation also a form of “waste?” The alternative is a society without any incentive to advance its technology and we’d stagnate, wouldn’t we?

    Remember that the first scientists were almost all relatively wealthy people (or clergy who didn’t have to worry about making a living) who happened to have the spare time pursue their interest in discovery, while the rest were entrepreneurs looking to create a new product for profit, which they usually channeled into more research. Ask yourself where we would our technology be without that drive?

  107. projectp says

    I disagree with almost every single sentence you just wrote. i just have to shake my head.
    The one thing i do agree with is that in the beginning the price system was the only available choice because technology had not advanced far enough to create an abundance. But as i mentioned, that abundance is being held back and we are stuck with crap and crappier goods designed to become obsolete and break just to keep the whole cycle going. The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. The middle class and poor do all the work and the rich take the majority of the profit. it’s disgusting. People have just enough to get by and it keep everyone on the treadmill fighting each other like crabs in a bucket just to stay in place. No time to even think about the paradox they are in. That is by design IMHO.

  108. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Problem is, if you remove the rich wouldn’t the poor simply start seeing the middle-class as their oppressors? Aren’t there poor both cursing and envying the few middle-class folks there are in thousands of towns too small to have rich people for them to curse and envy? The ditch digger both hates and wishes he was the local store owner just as much as the local store owner both hates and wishes he was the owner of Walmart. I highly doubt that human dissatisfaction will end if we manage to exchange a few hundred billionaires for thousands of more millionaires.

  109. projectp says

    You are missing the point, the fact is, that because of technology, none of us have to have a different quality of life whatsoever. furthermore by raising the lower classes quality of life, everyone’s (including the rich) quality of life goes up.
    Money is simply holding back what is technically achievable and has been since the 1930’s

    Now playing: The Verve -Bittersweet symphony. Singing along – “‘Cause it’s a bittersweet symphony, this life. Try to make ends meet You’re a slave to money then you die”

  110. Narf says

    118 – pp

    … none of us have to have a different quality of life whatsoever. furthermore by raising the lower classes quality of life, everyone’s (including the rich) quality of life goes up.

    Uh, no it doesn’t. How could you possibly justify the statement that making everyone’s quality of life equal would raise the quality of life of the rich? It’s bad enough using a nebulous term like quality-of-life, but then making statements like that about it is just so wrong.

    Average quality of life would go up, I would believe. Individual quality of life of those on top would have to go down, though, as they got a smaller slice of the pie. You can’t possibly enlarge the pie sufficiently to bring everyone’s quality of life up above that of the current billionaires.

  111. projectp says

    sure i can. The rich would no longer live in fear of the rest of us. Every product they consumed would be better because the motive would no longer be profit, it would be energy efficiency and longevity.

    ProjectP Puts the record back on…. gotta hear that track again…

  112. Narf says

    That’s silly.

    The rich would no longer live in fear of the rest of us.

    I don’t think that Mitt Romney particularly lives in fear of the rest of us. He seems pretty comfortably oblivious, judging from his statements during his presidential campaign.

    Every product they consumed would be better because the motive would no longer be profit, it would be energy efficiency and longevity.

    You’re also going to have to justify that wild-ass assertion. Everything you say is a serious oversimplification of how things actually work.

  113. projectp says

    Mitt Romney and the rest of the rich happen to live in well guarded and gated community. That is fear.
    I went to Staples today to get a plastic milk crates to hold some things in, and picked it up and took it to the counter.
    When the cashier scanned it she said in surprise “TEN DOLLARS FOR THIS PLASTIC!” I have a well-paying job, but she does not. To her $10 is a lot because staples pays them about $9/hr. So she has to work over an hour for a small piece of molded plastic. 1/8th of her daily income would go to that item. Narf I think you live in a bubble.

  114. kudlak says

    @projectp
    It could be argued that everyone’s quality of life has already been raised through technology. Advances in manufacturing and agriculture during the industrial revolution made the work of farmers and craftsmen more efficient, freeing their children to seek out less menial employment. Before that, children were needed to help with the family business as labor, often working as hard as actual slaves. Less menial labor coupled with mass-produced medicine and access to cheaper food in abundance has already improved our health. There was far less freedom before the 1930s to pursue your interests, to invent, and to create then there is now, and don’t we owe that to this system that you’re bashing?
    Then again, maybe technology is actually the cause of the problem of wasted resources. It’s technology which made mass production possible, including the kind used in factories producing the “crap” you’re complaining about. If we have the technology to feed, cloth, and shelter everyone, provide them with medicare and all the necessities of life wouldn’t that mean that production is working at such an efficiency that many people, the ones employed in those factories producing “crap” as well as the ones simply producing another variety of well-made merchandise, will eventually find themselves unemployed? When the government knows what’s best for you to buy how much variety do you think will be tolerated? Again, all you need to do is ask someone who lived through Soviet rule. Do you think they were happy back then, even when they weren’t starving? What if the experts all agree that people “need” something, divert huge amounts of resources to provide it, only to discover that they were wrong? The Soviets created waste as well, didn’t they?
    Finally, if you eliminate the drive to better yourself (which is what getting rich is all about) what incentive would people have to, you know, work?

  115. Narf says

    @122 – pp

    Mitt Romney and the rest of the rich happen to live in well guarded and gated community.

    If I had enough money, I would live in a gated community, too. The rest of us have to worry about the same things that drive the rich into gated communities. The rich just have the money to actually do so.

    ‘Living in fear of the poor’ implies an uprising of some sort. A gated community isn’t going to do shit against that sort of thing. You’re equivocating pretty badly.

    Narf I think you live in a bubble.

    Nope. You’ll notice that I’ve already said that the minimum wage needs to be raised way the hell up. $9/hour is stupidly low, for anyone who isn’t a teenager. I was low-balling at $12/hour; in reality, more like at least $15/hour would be reasonable, and I could see several dollars higher than that.

    You’re playing this silly game, in which I object to your more ballistic, ridiculous claims, and then you turn around and act as if I’m disagreeing with more reasonable claims you’ve made, which I’ve already agreed with. Stop that shit. This is why I said that I had given up on reasoning with you. You keep pulling this dishonest crap.

  116. kudlak says

    @projectp
    The very rich live in gated communities, the middle-class live in homes with expensive security systems, the lower classes have dogs and guns handy and the homeless keep their knives nearby. It’s all relatively the same allocation of resources to deal with the same problem. Anyone can become a target, and it’s not always about robbery. I don’t think that wealthy people will suddenly start going to bed at night with their front doors unlocked once everyone else becomes middle-classed. Do you assume that middle-classed people are all so content with what they have that they wouldn’t take from someone who has more?

  117. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @kudlak

    No system may be perfect, but ours may still be the best. Any person may rise and become successful in our society. There is no class system or elitism really. In point of fact, our system values the rise from the lower ranks above all and there are enough opportunities where anyone can take advantage of their talent, work hard, or simply luck into a desirable life. That’s better than any other system that has ever been tried IMHO.

    Surely you’re not talking about the United States. Maybe one of the Scandinavian countries?

    Seems rather ironic that a site dedicated to having governments run by the technical experts did not have a technical expert around to tell them how best to publish their material, eh?

    srsly

    Actually, I found the PDF file in the left-hand column, so I guess they do have some geeks working for them.

    They need a better webartist / web designer. And a fucking doc newer than fucking 1934. I would be ok if the doc was in like a “history of the movement” section. I would have the same objections if I went into a physics class and we were taught by the original papers of Einstein or Newton – oh god no.

    It could also be argued that the top 300 created their wealth, and that the rest of us reap the benefits. Wealth is created by entrepreneurs who either create new products, or raise the value of natural resources through marketplace machinations. Get rid of them and you won’t have their wealth to redistribute.

    And politely, but strongly, disagreed. It’s like I’m reading Republican trickle-down economics propaganda bullshit.

    There was far less freedom before the 1930s to pursue your interests, to invent, and to create then there is now, and don’t we owe that to this system that you’re bashing?

    Debatable. Citations please. And I definitely want some citations if you want to make the same claim for the 1920s or 1940s. In fact, I suspect that the reality is contrary to that. Now, compared to say 1630s England, I can definitely agree.

    I don’t think that wealthy people will suddenly start going to bed at night with their front doors unlocked once everyone else becomes middle-classed. Do you assume that middle-classed people are all so content with what they have that they wouldn’t take from someone who has more?

    What is this I don’t even. Are you a Republican? I’m definitely thinking that you are based on some of these comments.

    @projectp

    From your citation:

    This “technological plateau” will be followed by a second wave of computerization, dependent upon the development of good artificial intelligence. This could next put jobs in management, science and engineering, and the arts at risk.

    See, this is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. It’s written by people who don’t know the first thing about programming, or it’s done by CS professionals in the AI field who are boasting (read: lying) just to get more funding.

    About planned obsolescence. You didn’t address my point at all which is that there are simple ways to solve that in the current system – again targeted taxes and regulations. I fail to see how this could not practically solve the problem.

    Mitt Romney and the rest of the rich happen to live in well guarded and gated community. That is fear.
    I went to Staples today to get a plastic milk crates to hold some things in, and picked it up and took it to the counter.
    When the cashier scanned it she said in surprise “TEN DOLLARS FOR THIS PLASTIC!” I have a well-paying job, but she does not. To her $10 is a lot because staples pays them about $9/hr. So she has to work over an hour for a small piece of molded plastic. 1/8th of her daily income would go to that item. Narf I think you live in a bubble.

    I’m confused. Do you mean to tie these two points together? I see two entirely separate points. I think you think that they have something to do with each other, but I fail to see any connection.

    I’m also with Narf that you’re fallaciously arguing here. The rich often live in gated communities because they fear criminals, but this fear of criminals is also present in middle class, lower class, etc. The rich merely have more money to throw at the problem. The fear of being robbed belongs to everyone – not just the rich.

  118. projectp says

    what perfect society? that makes no sense, there is no such thing.

    I think the “free market” will be the last faith-based religion to go down. How our money is created and the policies by which it is governed, how it affects society, are unacknowledged concerns of the vast majority of our population.
    I have to laugh and cry at the same time I hear Atheist support a faith-based idea.

  119. LittleGramma says

    PP:
    I’m not that smart, but I can tell that the people who’ve been responding to your ramblings are way above your intelligence quotient.
    My guess is you were duped into buying gold and this sharing moment is to validate your purchase. Possibly even carbon credits came into play.
    And I’ll hazard another guess that you truly believe that this planet could ever have a Utopian society. When I was five I questioned why people could not simply be nice, (no racism, etc.), but sorry to say, even the lower animals (non humans) have hierarchy.
    Survival and/or selfishness rule, and make life even more difficult than it already is.
    Read one book on the topic of sociopaths and you’ll see why utopia is not possible. “The Sociopath Next Door” is a good one.
    Again, those here are way above my IQ, so this response is probably as off the wall as your ramblings.

  120. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Your preferable society then.
    Capitalism may not be perfect either, but it seems to beat all the others that have actually been tried. Owing to the fact that the world’s greatest economies are all capitalist, and that the economy most like the one you describe is considered to be one of the great failures of history, I rather think that it is you who is supporting a faith-based idea. I have to wonder what gives you so much faith is this untried, theoretical society?

  121. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I have to laugh and cry at the same time I hear Atheist support a faith-based idea.

    And what is this faith-based idea? And has any person in this thread supported it? Specific quotations please.

  122. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Come on, I’m sure that you can think of somebody from humble beginnings who made a fortune. It’s called the American Dream not the American Guarantee, after all.

  123. kudlak says

    @projectp
    People do get rich, even people who were once dirt poor sometimes get rich. This isn’t like some promise of Heaven. Very often, hard work and talent do pay off, don’t they?

  124. projectp says

    let me clarify EL,

    im not quite sure you are, but other definitely, I am kinda going through a hard time right now. I had a servere allergic reaction to a vine in the back yard a few days ago (Virginia creeper) . One of my eyes was completely swollen shut and my top lip 5 times it’s normal size. I am on several medications now and they are working but i am not at my top performance lol. Prednisone, Diphenhydramine(prescription strength). and Betameathasone Valerate. I have been missing words as i type and making a lot of mistakes with my typing etc…

  125. kudlak says

    It would be a faith-based system if everyone believed that they WILL become rich no matter what they did, but who would be crazy enough to actually believe that?

  126. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Come on, I’m sure that you can think of somebody from humble beginnings who made a fortune. It’s called the American Dream not the American Guarantee, after all.

    Possible does not mean probable, nor likely.

    You guys are defending the Faith-based price system at least a few of you are.

    In public policy debates, it is customary to examine one public policy in comparison to another public policy. Usually the comparison is made to the status-quo, but it doesn’t have to be.

    I hold the belief that: of all of the possible ways to arrange a society, some variant of a “Price System” is the best way to achieve long-lasting human happiness and well-being. I have made the fact-based comparisons between my ideal “Price System” and all other organizations of society with which I am familiar. This is not a faith-based position.

    In particular, just recently I again made another cost-benefit comparison between my ideal “Price System” variant, and the Technocracy as described in that particular document. I found the Technocracy described in that particular document to be quite lacking, for the reasons stated in my review of the document – found above.

    If you want to change my mind on this position, you have to at least bring a specific and detailed organization of society so that I might comment on it. Again, let me stress that thus far all you have provided is “wouldn’t it be nice if angels were in charge of our society?”. I completely agree that it would be great if angels were in charge of our society, but I don’t know how to summon them and convince them to perform this service. To go out of the analogy, it sounds fantastic if benevolent technocrat dictators set all of the prices in ways similar to what you suggest, but I don’t know how we might find these benevolent technocrats, give them dictatorial power, and yet somehow prevent corruption of the technocrats. That is what you need to provide, details on how this is to be accomplished, so that I might be able to examine the plan. You have no plan. You have but hot air.

  127. projectp says

    El,

    You are wrong in your analysis of how Technocracy works. I don’t have the energy to pursue that right now as noted above.
    It’s not going to make me lose sleep though because we are so far from that anyway.

    Money IS faith-based. It is an IOU a promise to pay on demand that is NOT backed by anything.
    When someone deposits say, $100 in the bank, the bank can then loan out 10000 dollars. The money is created out of thin air. Kinda like the story of how “god” created everything out of thin air. It’s a bullshit religion that most people BELIEVE in. It’s not based on the physical world. Fractional Reserve Banking is the fancy name that is put on it.

    It is bullshit like all other imaginary systems.

  128. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Money IS faith-based. It is an IOU a promise to pay on demand that is NOT backed by anything.
    When someone deposits say, $100 in the bank, the bank can then loan out 10000 dollars. The money is created out of thin air. Kinda like the story of how “god” created everything out of thin air. It’s a bullshit religion that most people BELIEVE in. It’s not based on the physical world. Fractional Reserve Banking is the fancy name that is put on it.

    That’s just fucking dishonest or foolish what you just said.

    I believe that I can go to the store tomorrow and use this green piece of paper to acquire goods. It’s fundamentally different if I were to believe that I can pray away my cancer. Completely and absolutely fucking different. My use of money is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based. My expectation that the sushi bar will take my money is completely and convincingly based on overwhelming evidence.

    I know money isn’t backed by anything. I know that banks and the federal reserve print money. I know that we’re not on the gold standard. Where exactly is my faith belief?

    Fucking gold standard nuts. You are one of them. What difference would it make if the US dollar was backed by gold and banks couldn’t print money without backing it in gold? I agree the economics are different, interest rates, etc., but that’s completely unrelated to your assertion that it’s a faith belief to use money not backed by gold. I tried to explain earlier that this position just fucking foolish. Let me explain again. So what if it was backed by gold? So what if I actually paid in person with physical gold bullion instead of US dollar paper money? Gold bullion is just as “faith based”. We as a society have come to a tact understanding that gold is valuable, and that we can trade gold for other services. It is exactly the same as paper money fiat currency in this regard. Gold is a fiat currency. Again, it is just as “faith based”.

    For example, if I stockpiled gold, tomorrow people might decide that they don’t like gold and they won’t take it in trade, and in that situation I would be shit out of luck. If I stockpiled US dollar paper money instead, under my bed, and tomorrow people stopped taking US dollar paper money in trade, I would be shit out of luck in exactly the same way. Both are fiat currency. Both are “faith based”. Exactly the same thing.

    Now, I admit that the resulting economic systems are a little different, again such as interest rates, the ability to print money is often easier and cheaper than mining gold from the ground, etc. However, they’re both fiat currency. They’re both “faith based”.

    Fucking gold standard nutters.

  129. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    PS:
    I also admit that it’s more likely that the US dollar will lose its consensus value as fiat currency compared to gold losing its consensus value as fiat currency. For several historical and physical reasons, gold probably will retain a high value in trade well past the death of the US dollar. Gold is still a fiat currency.

  130. projectp says

    Backing it by gold makes no difference to me. The system is antiquated. What i said still stands. Money is faith-based your faith in the currency is the only thing that makes the system work all.

  131. projectp says

    it’s funny that a lot of Atheist are actually subscribing to faith in money. I am advocating using something real that is not an abstraction. ENERGY. It can be measured. It is the basis for getting work done.

    Hell it took many people decades to realize worshiping something that wasn’t real was a bad idea, it might take you just as long.

  132. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    “Faith”. You keep using that word, but I think you do not know what it means.

    You know what these words mean, and you purposefully are using them contrary to their correct and consensus usages. Knock it off. You’re being dishonest and difficult, and it’s annoying. It’s a dishonest equivocation. You’re equivocating between fiat currency – which does not require any false or unsubstantiated beliefs – with religious faith beliefs, which are false and/or unsubstantiated. A person who believes that a god exists and worships it – that’s faith. A group of people who come together and by informed voluntary agreement agree to use certain pieces of paper in exchange for consumable goods – no worship, no faith.

    srsly

  133. projectp says

    You should read Theology of Money by Philip Goodchild.

    a quick sumarry.

    1) The value of money is transcendent: it is a promise, taken on faith, and only realized to the extent that this faith is acted out in practice in contractual exchange.
    2) Money is the supreme value because it is both the perspective through which we value the world and our means of making what we value real. Since money is the means by which all other social values may be realized, it posits itself as the supreme value.
    3) Financial value is essentially a degree of hope, expectation, trust or credibility. Yet financial value, measured by money, is our underlying reason, the discipline for our conduct, the pivot around which the world is reconstructed. Being transcendent to material and social reality, yet also being the pivot around which material and social reality is continually reconstructed, financial value is essentially religious.
    4) The entire monetary system has its own intrinsic logic of growth. This drive for growth is a separate engine of the global economy in addition to the individual acquisition of necessities and the individual pursuit of self-interest.

  134. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Your energy credits in your technocracy are fiat currency. If the technocracy government falls, they would be worthless and useless – exactly like any other paper money. By your own standards, the energy credits of a technocracy are faith-based.

    Your complaint is not about paper money. Your complaint is about how prices are set. You don’t like how prices are set according to capitalist free markets (with some amount of government taxation and regulation). Your ideal system would still use paper money, specifically a fiat currency, which you call “energy credits”. The only difference between the US status quo and your ideal system is government price controls. The status quo and your ideal system would both use faith-based money. You’re welcome for the clarification. I hope that you use it. You might sound like you know what you’re talking about.

  135. projectp says

    no they are not they are based on real measurable energy.
    no are not tradeable and you can not horde them they are just for accounting purposes.
    taking inventory of the amount of REAL energy used to have a balanced load.
    REAL energy not bullshit dollars created on a spreadsheet.

  136. projectp says

    Honestly, the idea has been moved forward beyond what Technocracy inc started by Peter Joseph from the Zeitgeist movement. I think I have said it a million times here that the ideas were starting points. Anyway, a resource based economy is based on physical matter in the world, not abstractions and faith.

  137. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    When I use paper money, which of the definitions of “faith” do you think are applicable? Let’s use your link.

    noun. 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
    Under this definition, I have faith in paper money. This definition is applicable. However, under this definition, I also have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

    IMHO, this “definition” is an idiomatic use, and trying to use it outside of its idiomatic use quickly leads to equivocation fallacies.

    noun. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
    I have plenty of evidence that the shopkeeper will accept my paper money in exchange for goods and services. This definition is not applicable.

    noun. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
    Last I checked, there are no requisite faith-beliefs to use money, apart from believing that you have a certain piece of paper in your pocket which the shopkeeper will accept for goods and services. This definition is not applicable.

    noun. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
    There are no particular ethics to using money. I’m not endorsing the merit of me, the shopkeeper, nor the money itself when I trade money for goods and services. This definition is not applicable.

    noun. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
    Again, not applicable.

    noun. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
    Fiat currency is not a debt. It is not an I.O.U. It is not a promise by the government or a bank that it will pay something. US dollars have been fiat currency ever since Nixon took us off the silver standard.

    noun. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
    Again, not applicable.

    noun. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
    Definitely not applicable.

    Idioms. 9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
    Not applicable.

  138. Monocle Smile says

    What the actual fuck?

    no they are not they are based on real measurable energy

    How does one measure energy? I mean, do you even know? I mean, I realize I’m talking to a simpleton who thinks he can equivocate the movement of a human body to a fucking engine turbine on a fucking LABOR basis, but still.

    no are not tradeable and you can not horde them they are just for accounting purposes.

    Are these “credits” made of matter? If so, then you’re fundamentally wrong. Good job ignoring my black market problem. What the fuck use are they? What do you DO with them?

    taking inventory of the amount of REAL energy used to have a balanced load

    I think they should make software developers take a fucking physics course, because you’re just woefully ignorant of how reality works.

  139. projectp says

    As long as you and the shop keeper believe in god you can do a lot of things together as well. But god is not real, just like the paper promissory notes do not stand for anything real.

    keep failing, I mean trying 😛

  140. projectp says

    BTU’s a measurement of energy, calories a measurement of energy. did you go to school?

  141. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    no they are not they are based on real measurable energy.
    no are not tradeable and you can not horde them they are just for accounting purposes.
    taking inventory of the amount of REAL energy used to have a balanced load.
    REAL energy not bullshit dollars created on a spreadsheet.

    Can I trade this “energy credits” thing for goods and services? Check. Is it a standardized form of a good which can be traded and it itself is not a consumption good? Check. That means this “energy credits” thing is money, currency, and specifically fiat currency. That’s simply the definitions of the words. That’s what the words mean. I cannot consume an energy credit. An energy credit is like a promise by the technocratic government that the energy credit can be redeemed for goods and services at shops businesses communistic distribution centers.

    They are totally tradable. You trade them for goods and services at authorized communistic distribution centers. I understand that there are legal limits on trading them. You cannot trade them with anyone. Trade is restricted to authorized communistic distribution centers.

    I understand that the price of all goods and services have been set by the technocractic authoritarian government and purportedly to match the energy requirements to produce the good. It doesn’t change the fact that an energy credit is worthless and useless without the technocratic state to fulfill its promise that it can be redeemed, e.g. traded, in certain specified circumstances for goods and services.

    Do you think that energy credits are going to be little vials of gasoline? I think not. There are going to be spreadsheets of energy credits, just like dollars. There are going to be little pieces of paper that the technocratic government creates which are mandated to be recognized as X energy credits – ok maybe you think it’ll all be digital, so no paper energy credits, but there will still be spreadsheets of em.

    I fail to see what hoarding has to do with anything I just said. Whether you can hoard them or not – whether they have an expiration date or not – has nothing to do with the fact that they are fiat currency, backed by faith in your ridiculous world view. Plenty of money in the real world has had expiration dates. Plenty of times governments have revalued their money – making all of the old money worthless in the process. This technocratic government would just do it at regular intervals. Then, it hands out the money to the citizens at regular intervals. We have a term for that scheme already. It’s called a guaranteed minimum income.

    Again, your system will use faith-based fiat currency just like the status quo. The differences are:

    1- A guaranteed minimum income scheme.
    2- Devaluations of the currency to zero worth at regular intervals.
    3- Spending money is illegal except at authorized communistic redistribution centers.
    4- Full government control of market prices.
    5- Magic to ensure that benevolent technocrats are in the authoritarian government to set the market prices to correspond to the raw energy required to produce the good or service.

    We can talk about any one of those policies in isolation, or in conjunction. We can talk about having a guaranteed minimum income scheme in the current system. I happen to be a big fan of at least one of those policies.

    Of course, even like this, the scheme is beyond the pale in terms of foolishness. You are simply not living in the real world. Even if you could reduce work requirements to 10% of today, that’s still a lot of work that needs to be done, and we still need to incentivize it with wages.

    PS:
    But of course, you just want to attack the status quo without offering an alternative. You are the one acting like a young Earth creationist who thinks that if they can destroy evolution, then creationism wins by default. You are trying to tear down the status quo, and you operate as if success means that your technocracy wins. Sorry. Arguments don’t work like that. You need to actually present positive evidence that technocracies are good. Merely arguing that “Price Systems” are bad won’t cut it. And for that, you need to actually specify a goddamned plan that the rest of us can evaluate.

  142. Monocle Smile says

    You’re talking to an engineer. Yes, we have units of energy. So fucking what? HOW do you measure that? There are several ways to get estimates of energy (most of them indirect through analysis), but like I said before, there’s this thing called “entropy.”

    For example, when we’re determining whether or not a coating or substrate will outgas in space, we use a series of vacuum tests, then in combination with the chemical properties, extrapolate the results. We can’t actually achieve a fucking space-grade hard vac on this planet as of now, so it’s not like we can actually subject the coating to the real, in-situ environment. We can get pretty good at estimating and we always err on the conservative side for good reason, but where the fuck does Technocracy allow for that kind of wiggle room? This is just THE START.

  143. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Yeah, you’re just here to fuck with us. Fuck off, troll-ass.

    Honestly? I doubt it. He seems pretty sincere in his absolutely ridiculous ideas and faith-beliefs.

    To you guy, yes you have faith beliefs. You think that technocracies are better, even though you cannot even begin to describe what one is in any particular detail, and no reasonable group of experts endorses technocracies, which means that you have no reasonable basis for liking technocracies.

    You have two options. You can actually put forth what is a technocracy and why it’s good, and show how it’s better to “Price Systems”. Or you can play the pissing game of argument by authority, which is not necessarily fallacious. You just need to find some authority that we can both agree is reliable, and who says that technocracies are a good thing.

  144. projectp says

    I have expressed a goddamned plan but you just don’t get it. You simply can’t wrap your head around it. That’s not my fault. It’s not complicated.

    You guys can stomp your feet, whine and call me names all you want. But sit back and look at that discourse from an outside observer’s perspective and tell me how that looks. foolish i think.

  145. Monocle Smile says

    @EL

    Yes, he’s persistent and sincere, but he sprinkles in little spurts of troll behavior that make me think there’s something wrong with him. It’s just juvenile at this point.

  146. Monocle Smile says

    But sit back and look at that discourse from an outside observer’s perspective and tell me how that looks. foolish i think

    Delusional idiot is delusional. To an outsider, this looks like a train wreck in slow motion. Do you really think you’ve made a single good point in favor of this “technocracy” bullshit? Do you really think you weren’t the original antagonist? If so, I recommend taking a break and reflecting on the past few days.

  147. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I have expressed a goddamned plan but you just don’t get it. You simply can’t wrap your head around it. That’s not my fault. It’s not complicated.

    No you have not. All I have seen is “let’s put angels benevolent technocrat overlords in charge of government”. That’s a ridiculously underspecified plan.

    Conventionally, in public policy debates, some degree of fiat power is assumed. By that, it is assumed that the affirmative team can change the world as if by magic to the dictates of their plan. Without that, then what’s the point of the public policy debate. Without that, the only possible debate would be over what will happen, not what should happen. You need some degree of fiat power in order to argue about what should happen.

    However, in public policy debates, generally fiat power is not unlimited. That’s what I meant to show by comparison to putting angels in charge. Perhaps no one would object to putting angels in charge. However, it’s not a plan that can be done. You have exceeded any reasonable amount of fiat power if you plan is to put angels in charge.

    All I have heard from you is that you want to change the prices by magic to match the energy costs of producing the good or service, plus some guaranteed minimum income scheme with money that has a short expiration date, plus some restrictions on trading this money. That’s not a plan. That’s just as bad as saying we should put angels in charge of the government.

    You need to use your fiat power to describe a plan which would set the prices to be what you want them to be, and to maintain those prices, because without that plan in place, in the status quo, the prices will quickly revert to a conventional “Price System”.

    You are right that I cannot wrap my head around underspecified angels-in-charge utopia bullshit. Please try again, and put some effort and detail into it next time.

  148. projectp says

    You guys can go on advocating money created out of thin air and loaned at interest. which is immoral because the people loaning the money are private international bankers.

    “You just need to find some authority that we can both agree is reliable, and who says that technocracies are a good thing.”

    that doesn’t seem likely because anyone that would advocate a Technocracy would not be someone you think is reliable almost by definition.

  149. projectp says

    you almost had it EL.

    you said “you want to change the prices by magic to match the energy costs of producing the good or service, ”

    just change it to this “”you want to value the prices by measurement to match the energy costs of producing the good or service, “

  150. Monocle Smile says

    Who does the measuring? How do they do it? What are the check and balances? What about the problems I’ve already raised? Why can’t you answer questions? Why do you bitch and moan like a fucking coward whenever you’re asked to explain obvious problems?

  151. projectp says

    Monocle Smile I don’t believe you are an engineer, any engineer would know that we can measure energy and how much is needed for a given task. if we couldn’t we would not have made it to the moon.

  152. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Here, let me do some of the work for you. Did you mean the following plan?

    Resolved, that the people of the United States should elect benevolent technocrats into the government, and change the United States constitution to enact the following plan.

    1- Conventional US dollars shall be abolished.
    2- The United States government shall issue new currency which shall expire every month.
    3- The United States shall implement a guaranteed minimum income scheme, paying out every month in the new currency.
    4- Laws shall be passed to make trading this currency illegal except with authorized distribution managers at authorized distribution centers.
    5- The government shall maintain the services of many scientists whose job shall be to calculate the energy consumed during the production of every good and service.
    6- The government shall take control of all production, services, manufactured, etc.
    7- The people shall not receive wages for their labor. All of their income shall be from the monthly guaranteed minimum income scheme.

    Something like that. One of the big holes in the above plan is how the hell do you ensure that people do their work? As I said, even if you automate 90% of current human labor, that’s still 10% of today’s human labor which is needed, and that’s a lot of human labor. IMAO, there’s no way you can ensure people will do the work without wages. Ok, maybe some draconian scheme of some sort might work, like the death penalty for failure to work. (After all, you need something that will work on prison guards too. No prison guards, no prison, no incarceration.) But I assume we’ll go for a more humane option. I just don’t know what that could be except for wages, and you don’t have wages in this new scheme.

    In all honesty, that is the my best guess for the plan which you have been proposing. I’ve had to fill in a few missing details, take a few guesses, etc. It really should be your job to specify it rather than for me to guess and infer what you mean.

    Again, you still have the glaring problem of ensuring people do their jobs in a world without wages.

  153. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    which is immoral because the people loaning the money are private international bankers.

    Why is that immoral?

  154. Monocle Smile says

    if we couldn’t we would not have made it to the moon

    1) Apollo 11 took more goddamn luck than most people realize (like solar minimum even though we didn’t know what that was at the time)
    2) The reason space missions work is because we estimate energy USING CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS and we install MARGIN FOR ERROR. We can measure the voltage across a solar array, we can use math and material properties to estimate cable losses, and we can measure the current flowing through the cable, but that doesn’t mean we know exactly how many fucking joules per second are flowing into the battery. Read a fucking book.

    Pay the fuck attention. Your crappy system can’t allow for either of those because then you get wiggle room for people to gouge on prices. You get price variability. Why can’t you answer a single question?

  155. projectp says

    EL,

    1. If you don’t like the plan then don’t accept it.
    2. if you like parts but have problems with some of it offer constructive critic.

    Let’s say i had a printing press and i printed all the money, and came out of thin air.
    Then loaned it to you at interest, now you owe me more money than is in existence.

    do YOU think that is Moral? you are in debt to me and i have done nothing for you. you are now my indentured servant.

  156. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    1. If you don’t like the plan then don’t accept it.

    You haven’t yet given a plan you goddamned asshat.

    I’m done. I’ll check in occasionally to see if he ever bothers to give a plan.

  157. projectp says

    Monocle,

    Honestly I think your questions are so stupid that I don’t want to answer them. Case in point.
    You are talking about price gouging when it has been stated that prices are fixed on the energy cost.
    Silly questions like, who measure it? Are just that, silly. Obviously someone qualified and checked for accuracy and honesty. it’s not rocket science.

  158. Monocle Smile says

    Silly questions like, who measure it? Are just that, silly. Obviously someone qualified and checked for accuracy and honesty

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You need human contact.

  159. projectp says

    El i answered why i thought it was immoral….

    Let’s say i had a printing press and i printed all the money, and came out of thin air.
    Then loaned it to you at interest, now you owe me more money than is in existence.
    do YOU think that is Moral? you are in debt to me and i have done nothing for you. you are now my indentured servant.

  160. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Nope. I’m done with you until you admit that you haven’t provided a plan that I can evaluate, or until you provide such a plan. Until that moment, I consider you an irredeemable asshat who is not worth my time.

    Good day

  161. LittleGramma says

    PP
    Hey, you never responded to me.
    But your avatar says it all. You are 21, (maybe) still live with mom. Maybe dad is in the picture or a series of men have graced your home, because you drive a wedge between everyone around you.
    Both mom and current man friend-spouse) want you out, but your excuses are endless. And you make sure you don’t hold any job, so what are they to do? Read this and send you packing.
    You ramblings make you think you are smart…not really, but you can figure out how to live on your own if you have to. You know how the world works, you just want it to perform to your specs.
    You claim to have a good paying job. I’d say that might have been true last week or month, but you don’t put out any more energy in the jobs you temporarily hold than you can get away with until fired. You believe you are entitled to a wage of someone who has actually studied or apprenticed and/or actually performs measurable work even if that work may be considered menial to you.
    Likely you’ve spent time in psychiatric care or should, but your mom is in denial that her son is a sociopath…she probably doesn’t realize there is a name for it.
    If not for you, get the book I recommended for your mom/parents. Really, it shouldn’t matter to you that she/they finally understand how you think…because you are above it all anyway, right?

  162. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    “Possible” is still better than the lame guarantees of Paradise for all who accept Jesus as their personal Saviour, wouldn’t you agree?

    The American Dream, at least the ultimate dream of becoming a billionaire, simply doesn’t pan out for everyone. Not everyone has the talent, the work ethic, the opportunity, or even the luck to achieve it. That really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, because there is no part of The Dream in which EVERYONE becomes wealthy. That would be like everyone automatically getting into Heaven, and where would the fun be in that, eh?

    Some people just get locked into the mindset that they will be complete failures unless they make their own personal fortune or become a rich celebrity. That’s taking it all to a religious, faith-based level that simply isn’t necessary. Achieving at least middle-class success is probably what our immigrants are realistically hoping for these days.

  163. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Energy credits as currency?
    How can you possibly “fix” energy costs in a world where industries are constantly looking for new sources of energy and better means of conserving it? Seems your system would be ripe for collapse should someone come up with a cheaper means of producing energy or gluts the system with overproduction. Isn’t energy just another commodity, with a value that depends on the whims of investors just as much as money and gold?

  164. projectp says

    ” Isn’t energy just another commodity, with a value that depends on the whims of investors just as much as money and gold?”

    Absolutely not. Energy is a measurable value. And the more efficient we become the lower it’s cost are. Energy credits are not traded or speculated etc you are still thinking money. And obviously did not read one word.

    The System is based on the FACT that we can produce more than we can consume. So the calculated net energy is divided but will not be completely used. Because there is more than we can consume. The “credits” (for lack of a better word) are for tracking purposes of knowing what has been used and what real-time adjustments need to be made if any at all.

    The name credit is not set in stone and could just as easily be called Units. The System Technocracy has laid out, as i said @ 102, is dated and I only like the plan as a starting point. You are asking me the same questions that i have already answered. Then you failed to read @ 148 where i said the ideas of BOTH Technocracy and The Venus project had been moved forward By Peter Joseph and i would subscribe to that more modern approach.

    Most of you have skipped over the majority of my post. An extremely important one about the current money system
    Because you are trying to prove your own preconceptions about what is proposed and do not understand it in the first place. JUST LIKE A THEIST

    Again I make a the point about our Money:

    Let’s say i had a printing press and i printed all the money for the government. Like the Fed.
    Then loaned it to the Gov at interest (like the FED), now you owe me more money than is in existence.
    do YOU think that is Moral? you are in debt to me and i have done nothing for you. except made you my debt slave.

    I THINK THE GOLD STANDARD IS JUST AS BAD. ANY commodity valuation lead to failure as Technology eliminates work and creates abundance. Moneys value thrives on scarcity.

    LittleGrandma. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. in fact i have already stated my age. And ProjectP is just a play on a rock group i liked in 1984 called “Planet P Project” they had a hit called “why me” you deserve nothing more.

  165. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Maybe we can produce more than our present population can consume, but how sustainable can your system be with an ever increasing population? Shouldn’t we suspect a tipping point some time in the relatively near future?

  166. projectp says

    If populations continue to grow no matter what system is in place the same end is inevitable, population decline.
    And that is another problem with the price system. Its is dependant on growth. Without growth, if you haven’t noticed economist start panicking.

  167. projectp says

    Kudlak said “The American Dream, at least the ultimate dream of becoming a billionaire, simply doesn’t pan out for everyone. Not everyone has the talent, the work ethic, the opportunity, or even the luck to achieve it. That really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, because there is no part of The Dream in which EVERYONE becomes wealthy. That would be like everyone automatically getting into Heaven, and where would the fun be in that, eh?”

    Here is another place where you are missing of the point Kudlak, and it’s a simple one. There is no need for us to live in different classes or for people to be homeless or in poverty, without education or lack of anything really. We have the technological ability to supply everyone with a high standard of living, but our use of money prohibits that from EVER happening.

    you then said: “That would be like everyone automatically getting into Heaven, and where would the fun be in that, eh?”

    Saying someone needlessly suffer because our achievement would be too easy and therefore not fun?
    Don’t give any passing theist such an easy target about morality please.

  168. Monocle Smile says

    Absolutely not. Energy is a measurable value. And the more efficient we become the lower it’s cost are. Energy credits are not traded or speculated etc you are still thinking money. And obviously did not read one word

    How is this enforced? You haven’t answered anything along this line of questioning.

    The name credit is not set in stone and could just as easily be called Units. The System Technocracy has laid out, as i said @ 102, is dated and I only like the plan as a starting point.

    Funny, because you didn’t take this position until after EL’s review.

    Most of you have skipped over the majority of my post. An extremely important one about the current money system

    You’re the only one who thinks it’s important, and the reason we appear to skip over it is because we somewhat agree with you. Why the fuck would we discuss something here that we agree on? Are you just in the hunt for a back-patting session? Because this isn’t the place.

    We have the technological ability to supply everyone with a high standard of living, but our use of money prohibits that from EVER happening

    No, it’s the failings of humanity and the corrupt nature of power and influence that prohibits this from happening. This is why I implore you to seek human contact. You’re focused on exactly the wrong thing.

    Let’s say i had a printing press and i printed all the money for the government. Like the Fed.
    Then loaned it to the Gov at interest (like the FED), now you owe me more money than is in existence.
    do YOU think that is Moral? you are in debt to me and i have done nothing for you. except made you my debt slave

    Who enforces the debt? If it’s nobody, then I just tell you to fuck off and you’re left with a bunch of worthless money. You’re clueless as to how this actually works. Money is part of a social contract.

  169. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Let me get this straight then; you’re advocating that technical experts control production, which they will maximize through technology and halting the production of items they view as wasteful and useless, which would essentially eliminate many private entrepreneurs, inventors, farmers, artists and others currently making a living from these industries, right?

    That leaves us with two possible futures for these people: Either the technology won’t be so efficient as to not make positions for all of them as well, but their opportunities become severely limited; or the technology will be so efficient as to not require that everyone contributes and you end up with huge numbers of unemployed who are still provided with as good a standard of living as the people clocking full workdays.

    … and you actually believe that this will lead to greater peace and happiness within society?

  170. kudlak says

    @projectp
    When you eliminate failure aren’t you also eliminating success? What’s the motivation to better yourself in your society when the state provides everyone the same standard of living no matter what you do? That’s what I meant with the Heaven and Hell analogy. Theists would ask what the point of Heaven was if everyone automatically went there anyway and they would have a point, wouldn’t they?

  171. LittleGramma says

    PP
    “There is no need for us to live in different classes or for people to be homeless or in poverty, without education or lack of anything really. We have the technological ability to supply everyone with a high standard of living, but our use of money prohibits that from EVER happening.”

    Have you had an accident which left you with brain injury? This utopia you keep harping on can never happen. Technological ability and reality are impossible to connect. This world is imperfect, people are imperfect. You agree there is no god to jump in and make it perfect. Even the Bible you don’t believe in says God was displeased with the beings he created in his image and kicked them out of the perfect garden to live life with imperfection at every turn. So how do you hold onto this faith that humans can be more than they are?

    Add to that the fact, yes FACT, that not everyone wants to have the standard you describe and apparently believe that everyone is entitled. Who says? Why? This high standard of living requires personal effort to maintain. Depending on where in the world you live and even then that may not be a factor, there are people who want to live very simply with very little ‘property’ to have to maintain.

    Others with children/family members who are imperfect from birth or damaged in injuries or illness, disease, genetic anomalies that progress with age will require much more money than your high standard of living allows. How will you determine the maintenance of this standard of living? Who will decide?

    There are among us born sociopaths who care not one wit about others, except as it furthers their status. These people hide their pathology from the rest of us, so there will be these people as caretakers of the distribution (you can bet on it) and they will NOT distribute fairly. The psychopaths will injure and kill others for sport, so what do we do with them? Will they be allowed to roam free or do we lock them up and still continue their fair distribution?

    How do you expect to manage the fair distribution? Where is the incentive to maintain a society who has everything handed to them? Who is going to decide the job distribution? Who decides who will feed, bathe and wipe the behinds of those who cannot do it for themselves…all ages.

    You blather on about some technology that does not exist, but you conveniently ignore that people will always be imperfect. The planet has a molten core, atmosphere and tides; and will do what it does. How do you account for natural disasters?

    It’s been asked before, where are those perfect angelic beings who will distribute the wealth and keep the peace and harmony you imagine that follows an equal distribution? An equal distribution of what?

    Your utopia will have to take time into account. Who will determine the amount of time someone has to live?

  172. says

    In projectpland, does a McDonald’s worker earn more energycredits™ if they sell a Big Mac versus a small cheeseburger? Does an A-list actor earn more energycredits™ than a C-list actor even though they have the same amount of dialogue in a movie?

  173. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @kudlak

    The American Dream, at least the ultimate dream of becoming a billionaire, simply doesn’t pan out for everyone. Not everyone has the talent, the work ethic, the opportunity, or even the luck to achieve it.

    Whether you are successful has little to do with those factors. What matters far more is accidents of birth and accidents during life.

    Like 90% of people, probably much higher, will not achieve the American Dream. The American dream is bullshit. It’s simply a delusion regarding how the American society actually works.

    Your outliers didn’t make it successful based on pure skill and determination. Almost all of them had lucky breaks, connections, and so forth.

    I’m with George Carlin that the American Dream is one of the biggest loads of crock ever sold to the American public.

    That would be like everyone automatically getting into Heaven, and where would the fun be in that, eh?

    Is this sarcasm? If not – the fuck is wrong with you? My goal is, and our goal should be, to make everyone materially wealthy and happy to the best we can.

    Really, half of what you say makes you seem like a miserable human being, a fan of Republican trickle down economics, and a heartless bastard. Is it all part of a joke, a masquerade?

  174. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also:

    Maybe we can produce more than our present population can consume, but how sustainable can your system be with an ever increasing population? Shouldn’t we suspect a tipping point some time in the relatively near future?

    Thankfully, this is wrong. All of the evidence strongly indicates that if we raise people to a western standard of living, they have less kids, and populations will eventually decline. We already see this in American and many European countries. Japan too. IIRC, Japan actually has negative population growth, and many western states have negative population growth after you factor out the increased life expectancies.

    If we want to save the world from overpopulation, a great way to do that is to make everyone happy and materially wealthy, and to provide sex ed, family planning, and free birth control. Feminism is important too. The emancipation of women to control their own bodies with birth control is crucial.

  175. Narf says

    Heh, holy shit, guys. This blew up just a bit.

    Yeah, I don’t think this guy is a troll in the usual meaning of the word. I’m willing to accept that he probably believes in this stuff. He just doesn’t understand how to string together a coherent argument … or a coherent anything, really, which is why he believes in this stuff. So, he looks like a troll, because he jumps around randomly and throws random shit at us, like a creationist, because he thinks that that’s how you put together an argument.

    Like with that argument we had about married vs. single income-tax tiers (I forget, was that MS or EL?), we didn’t resolve a whole lot, because I think we had some different premises somewhere which we couldn’t sort out, but at least the argument flowed a hell of a lot more coherently. This guy is in the throw-random-shit-against-the-wall style, so you can’t fucking pin him down on anything.

    He’s taking a slightly more trollish turn towards the end here, trying to equivocate the living fuck out of the concept of faith … again, like Christian apologists do to atheists. I think I’m out of this one, guys, although I’ll still probably read it, since there aren’t any other discussions going on around here, right now. You can only point out to someone so many times how his argumentation style is just utterly dishonest, from the ground up, before you have to conclude that he’s fundamentally dishonest in some way, and you should just stop wasting your time.

  176. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Like with that argument we had about married vs. single income-tax tiers (I forget, was that MS or EL?), we didn’t resolve a whole lot, because I think we had some different premises somewhere which we couldn’t sort out, but at least the argument flowed a hell of a lot more coherently. This guy is in the throw-random-shit-against-the-wall style, so you can’t fucking pin him down on anything.

    I was in it. I think we actually did figure out the starting points of disagreement, and I admitted that the position isn’t that unreasonable. I just wanted to know why people are for it.

  177. Narf says

    I just don’t remember ever giving you a completely satisfactory answer, and the comparisons to various business aides went down a bit of a rabbit hole. I think the key premise that we ran up against was that I think that people should be able to declare themselves a social and political unit, and you seemed to have some issues with that. I dunno. It seemed like there were some other hidden premises that we were conflicting on, which we never sorted out.

    Part of the issue is probably that we both consider the social and legal rights, not the tax money, to be the more important part of the gay-marriage issue, I think. The whole thing came up as a result of that idiot arguing against gay marriage through some of the most blatant use of the naturalist fallacy that I’ve ever seen. Sure, money is important, too, but when we’re both arguing about the B-side of an issue, about which we don’t have as much of an interest, it’s going to get a little muddled. 😀

  178. projectp says

    Narf, you are correct about one thing. I am not particularly good at connecting dots from a to b. This I am sure is because I assume the people I am talking to have prior knowledge that they do not.

    If you would like to see someone that is far more eloquent than I and answers some tough questions watch this
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-bdr68jHe8

    As for all the other post they are not really worth answering because I know by the questions asked that what I have tried to get across just hasn’t made it for whatever reasons. There is too much of the “we can never do X attitude” with you guys. Like the people who told the wright brothers man can never fly. I just don’t agree.

    If we have the technology and resources, then even the sky is not the limit, we can go to space and beyond.
    The only thing holding us back are the limitations we are imposing on ourselves. I am speaking metaphorically of course.

  179. Narf says

    I think a lot of the prior ‘knowledge’ that you have is also pretty suspect.

    Like the people who told the wright brothers man can never fly. I just don’t agree.

    So, give us a proof of concept, like the Wright Brothers did.

    Let’s examine your comparison. Trying to put together a better government than the bodge-job of a system that we have now is analogous to getting a person up off of the ground in true flight.

    How many bat-shit insane designs were there for flying machines, which only accomplished injuring or killing their pilots? The Wright Brothers are known for building the one that worked first. Why do you think your proposals are worthy of being compared to their plane, rather than one of the hundreds that launched up the ramp and immediately crashed into the water?

    Oh, sure, there are some cool ideas in those proposals, like you’ll find in any decent science-fiction book. The problem is that if we took those ideas out of the purely conceptual and tried to apply them to actual people, the vast majority of them would fail spectacularly.

    We’re skeptics. We rely upon evidence and testing to indicate what is likely true and what will likely work. We have many examples of people setting off to start up a society like what you’re envisioning. We listed some of them. When you find one that didn’t fail and turn into a total nightmare, let us know.

    The only thing holding us back are the limitations we are imposing on ourselves.

    And the people. Always the people.

    Anarcho-capitalists share a problem with your proposals, as I mentioned before. You’re working with humans as you want them to be, rather than as they are.

    Where you differ from them is that I think you genuinely care a hell of a lot more about society as a whole and other people than they do. You can construct a society on pretty much any structure and it will work well, if you have a bunch of group-minded, ethical, philanthropic people. But that isn’t what we have to work with. If we took a few thousand clones of you, we would probably have a decent society, while if we took a few thousand random anarcho-capitalists, we would almost certainly end up with a fucking nightmare.

    The problem is that we have both you and them to work with, along with a bunch of uneducated, uninterested, easily-lead people in the middle. And no, you can’t fix that by redesigning a society in which those people will magically become better people. People don’t work like that. You can cajole a certain percentage of people into becoming more socially minded and more productive, by improving their starting point, but the majority will just refuse to cooperate. They’ll go on being interested in the things they’re interested in, despite your best intentions.

  180. projectp says

    Narf said: “We’re skeptics. We rely upon evidence and testing to indicate what is likely true and what will likely work. ”

    I think you are incorrigible skeptics. Which makes your skepticism dysfunctional.
    Just check out the video for someone that addresses the questions you just brought up in a much better way than I can.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-bdr68jHe8 it is 2 hours long and covers a lot of ground.

    If you still disagree after that, then there is nothing more that can be said between you and I at this time.

  181. LittleGramma says

    I think projectp and enlightenmentliberal are the same person. Even to the point of arguing with himself, but still maintaining this silly utopia nonsense. It’s the same argument in a nutshell…some dream of a utopia and that the standard monetary system is the fault behind our inability to become a utopia.

    “If we want to save the world from overpopulation, a great way to do that is to make everyone happy and materially wealthy, and to provide sex ed, family planning, and free birth control. Feminism is important too. The emancipation of women to control their own bodies with birth control is crucial.”

    So, no responsibility for your own actions. Make those who actually work pay for it and/or for education claptrap that still doesn’t have any effect, except to create yet another generation looking for handouts while they jump from bed to bed making babies they cannot or will not raise. Sterilization should be implemented here and often. Because they are entitled to do whatever they want with their body, right? But procreating should not be one of them. Right?

    There is no overpopulation, except for those who should not be producing in the first place leaving their children for others to raise. However, the majority of those children will not be raised in a home with two parents who love them. Even then, some of those children, regardless of ideal nurturing will be the sociopaths and psychopaths who intentionally muck things up for the rest of us. Because life is too dull otherwise.

    There is enough to go around and would be obtainable if there weren’t those nasty psycho and sociopaths mucking it up.

  182. Monocle Smile says

    I think you are incorrigible skeptics. Which makes your skepticism dysfunctional

    Says the guy who’s latched onto the paranoid windbag who created “Zeitgeist.” You have no clue what skepticism is.

    @LittleGramma
    You DO realize that you’re dangerously close to being one of those sociopaths you denigrate, right? Some of the shit you want to be done to other people is scary.

  183. LittleGramma says

    pp 194.
    You truly don’t have any thoughts or plans for this society you have faith will work. You want to keep throwing out the articles and videos that you’ve been brainwashed into believing or wish could be, because you have no real life in human society…so you make it up as you go. This week it’s pseudo debating with actually intelligent men, next week, it will be something else in another forum of yet again people who have the IQ to actually know the topic they are discussing.

    These articles or videos are not thinking for yourself, nor is it understanding anything about yourself or humanity.

    Give it up little man. You know you refuse to engage me, because I’ve got your number.

    You just puppet master to get others to do your thinking for you. Because those articles and videos give you a glimpse of a utopia, but you cannot figure out how to make it happen. Here’s a reality check: The authors of those articles and videos can’t either. So they type or get some face time to spew about the little they think they know to make themselves feel better. Because the world is too scary to actually live in as it is.
    J
    ust like those who believe in a sky god, they dream of a utopia earth in their lifetime….or spend inordinate amounts of their life designing how life should be instead of living their life. Creating and doing for no other purpose than to enjoy themselves….and perhaps helping others to enjoy the short time we have as sentient beings who can make things happen.

    Just as useful would be to wish you’d been an elephant and rant on and on how your life as an elephant isn’t fair because all the other elephants don’t desire the same as you.

    Well honey, let me clue you in once again. Utopia isn’t possible. People being the diverse humans that they are born, and scaredy cats ensure it can NEVER be.

  184. Narf says

    @194 – pp

    I think you are incorrigible skeptics. Which makes your skepticism dysfunctional.

    Thanks for the insult. You sound like the sort of people at debunkingskeptics.com that Martymer is dealing with in his one series. If you are unable to provide evidence to support your claims, you shouldn’t just whine about us being closed-minded because we won’t accept your unsupported claims. You should go get evidence to support your claims. Once you have a proof of concept, an actual nation, not a couple dozen self-selected people hanging out in a commune, I’ll admit you were right.

    We could play the same game, saying that you’re closed-minded and unwilling to listen to the evidence against your position, and your support of this stuff is incorrigible. Let’s not play that game.

    And as you saw, I can throw around Youtube links, too. You’re not going to go watch my videos, any more than I’m going to watch yours, are you? Let’s not play this game, either.

    If you still disagree after that, then there is nothing more that can be said between you and I at this time.

    Yeah, a two-hour long video of this guy spouting unsupported assertions about how a society should run. Sorry, not interested. What I’ve already seen of it leads me to believe that it’s the same sort of crackpot stuff that we’ve heard so far. Why would I want to subject myself to two hours of the crap, with no chance to ask questions of my own?

  185. projectp says

    Narf,

    I was correct, you are incorrigible. Heels locked and ears plugged.

    Monocle Smile says
    @LittleGramma
    You DO realize that you’re dangerously close to being one of those sociopaths you denigrate, right? Some of the shit you want to be done to other people is scary.

    which is why LittleGramma does not deserve a response IMO.

  186. LittleGramma says

    monacle smile
    Yes, I do realize that sterilization should be used often, but those who need it won’t opt for it. I also believe it will never be socially (laws made) enforced, so to say it should be done in cases where drug using women keep making babies that if lucky are adopted to loving homes, doesn’t make it so.

    The sterilization opinion is also not a characteristic of a sociopath. I didn’t realize I was denigrating sociopaths. They are simply part of the make up of humanity and will do their thing regardless of any pleadings otherwise. Yeah, I guess I did say there were nasty. People who mentally or physically torture and/or kill others for sport are rather a nasty human, wouldn’t you agree?

    I’ve lived a long time and only recently came to understand what a sociopath was and how they operate. Right under your nose. And they are more dangerous than you realize.

    Because most people operate under the assumption that the majority of people have other’s interests in mind when they say or do things. For sociopaths or psychopaths…nope. They fly under the radar and pit empathetic people against each other for sport.

    It seems more applicable that a sociopath would attempt to convince others of a utopia for the accolades or to receive remuneration of some sort. The drug pusher or pimp also come to mind.

  187. Monocle Smile says

    I also believe it will never be socially (laws made) enforced, so to say it should be done in cases where drug using women keep making babies that if lucky are adopted to loving homes, doesn’t make it so

    Wow, you don’t get it. The fact that you want this to happen is horrifying. It doesn’t matter one shit that it will never happen (although there’s going to be several Congressmen who propose it at some point). This is abnormal behavior.

    You know what does alleviate the problem you named? Easy, affordable access to contraception and access to safe abortions. Plus comprehensive sex education. THAT is how a sane person who actually gives a shit about other people proposes a solution.

  188. LittleGramma says

    Monacle,
    You disappoint me. Insanity is to believe that affordable contraception and free sex education is not already available.

    Did you not attend gradeschool? Did you not have sex education that to prevent pregnancy you are abstinent. She keeps clothing on and legs closed and you also keep your clothing on. No genital access. You also access a book in the library or on the internet to understand and use forethought to your cycle, spend your fun money on chemical and/or barrier contraception.
    If you have enough money to party and have sex, you have enough money to prevent pregnancy.
    To even entertain the idea that contraception and sex education is unavailable to the masses is about as dense as one can get.
    To make the responsible of society responsible for the irresponsible is the ultimate of socialism/communism.
    Yet, you are not horrified to kill babies (be a murderer) to spare the female from being sterile because she’s otherwise to stupid to prevent pregnancy. Really……….
    Now, who is it that doesn’t get it?

  189. Narf says

    @199 – pp

    I was correct, you are incorrigible. Heels locked and ears plugged.

    Heh, you out to go full-on Hitler with that statement. That would be funnier. I don’t think I even need to address this point anymore, for anyone else who might see it.

  190. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @projectp

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-bdr68jHe8 it is 2 hours long and covers a lot of ground.

    Translation: Hey guys! I promised that my views are described in this 200 page long doc. Oh wait – tricked you. That doc is out of date, and it doesn’t accurately reflect my views. So, here is this 2 hour long video which describes my views. I wonder if I’ll have any suckers takers.

    @LittleGramma in 195
    I see nothing wrong with having the goal of making everyone as materially wealthy and happy – as allowed by physics, human sociology, etc. A major difference between me and technocrat-guy is that I can better distinguish between working plans and not working plans. I am not sure if you share this goal. I hope you do. If you share this goal, which I call “humanism”, then it’s just a scientific matter as to what plan will best achieve our shared goal.

    Now, I happen to disagree quite strongly with some of your scientific assertions. However, before we get to that, can I get some agreement from you concerning humanism and trying to make the world a better place for everyone?

    @LittleGramma in 202
    Again, you are displaying a lot of warning signs indicative of a white male Republican, with white supremacy, racism, xenophobia, callousness, white male privilege, and probably economic privilege too.

    About overpopulation. I don’t think you want to have a conversation about overpopulation if you are bringing up crack-whores and crack-babies, and you did, not by name but you did. That’s not a conversation about overpopulation. You want to have a conversation about welfare and argue it’s bad, about a minimum guaranteed income scheme and argue it’s bad. You want to have a conversation that poor and stupid people are poor and stupid because of genetics and it’s a good idea to sterilize them to improve the gene pool. On accuracy, how am I doing thus far?

    If you want to have a real conversation about overpopulation, statements like “Did you not attend gradeschool?” and “If you have enough money to party and have sex, you have enough money to prevent pregnancy.” miss the fucking point that overpopulation is a problem in third world countries, not in western countries. I explained this already. Let me try again: If you factor out immigration and account for improved life expectancies, then population growth is already negative in nearly all western countries. For places where overpopulation is a problem, a lot of them didn’t have grade school. A lot of them don’t have access to a library or the internet. In a lot of those places, women are treated like cattle and have no bodily autonomy to choose to use birth control, do not attend school, and have no opportunity to even learn about birth control.

    Now, could you clear up a few issue for me please. I think you are pro-life, and you are in favor of a law which would outlaw all voluntary abortions at all points in pregnancy. Is that correct? If so, you’ll have to excuse the rest of us because we do not share your magical thinking regarding souls, which is only likely reason you would have such a position.

    Also, most of us here are probably sex-positive. I find your discussion of blaming the women especially problematic and sexist. The connotation and tone is that women are sluts, and women having sex is bad, and I quite profoundly disagree with that assessment. Women are not your property, and women should be free to have sex to the same extent as men, and everyone should be free to have sex as much as they want. This sex-negative attitude is archaic and is counter to my goal of improving the happiness and well-being of everyone.

  191. projectp says

    No trick EL, I stated it ver and over that those were starting points and ideas.

    No free thought here on this blog.

    I will make comments here on other issues from time to time, but you people are a very bad joke, except for kudlak. They way you spit out platitudes and attack each other with such disrespect and name calling is sad. You know a discussion is no longer worth having when someone compares another person with Hitler!

    Watching El and LittleGramma go back and forth is just pitiful.

  192. Narf says

    Insanity is to believe that affordable contraception and free sex education is not already available.
    Did you not attend gradeschool? Did you not have sex education that to prevent pregnancy you are abstinent.

    Uhhhhhh, whoah. I have to step in here. I don’t know which country you live in, but that is not the case everywhere, here in the US. MS has been a little aggressive about this (at least with the tone I read it with, in my head (mileage may vary)), for my taste, but he has a point here.

    Abstinence-only education is not sex education. My girlfriend had to fill out a chart, in her high-school sex-education program. There was a column in which she had to list the pros of waiting until marriage to have sex and the cons of having sex before marriage. This was not an honest education on the subject.

    They were told that condoms give you penis cancer, at a fairly high rate, and that you get pregnant 1 out of every 6 times you have sex with a condom. Sex education in most of this country is a freaking travesty. On top of that, the Republican party is trying to limit women’s access to birth control pills and other protection. Some of them are trying to get the pill and IUDs completely outlawed, as abortifacients.

  193. Narf says

    @204 – EL

    Translation: Hey guys! I promised that my views are described in this 200 page long doc. Oh wait – tricked you. That doc is out of date, and it doesn’t accurately reflect my views. So, here is this 2 hour long video which describes my views. I wonder if I’ll have any suckers takers.

    Heh heh heh. Yeah. Fool me once …
    Fool me twice …

    PP, man, you already burned up all of your credibility on your first distraction dump.

  194. Narf says

    Oh, and this, from LittleGramma in 202 …

    Yet, you are not horrified to kill babies (be a murderer) to spare the female from being sterile because she’s otherwise to stupid to prevent pregnancy. Really……….

    Abortion isn’t killing babies. They aren’t babies, at that point. They’re an unthinking little clump of cells. In the vast majority of abortions, you can’t even find the fetus, from all of the uterine lining.

    This is another of the lies spread by the religious right. I’ve seen so many conservative Christian films that have a woman or girl who’s obviously 7 or 8 months pregnant, contemplating an abortion, in their little bullshit morality plays. The anti-choicers are profoundly dishonest in almost every single argument they make.

    The most recent example that comes to mind is “Do You Believe?” which had that scene exactly. The pregnant teenage girl looked about ready to pop, but she was out looking for abortion providers, when the good Christian found her. A lot of fundamentalists think that’s really what an abortion is like. If a girl like that had shown up at a real abortion provider, the provider would have asked her where the hell she was 5 or 6 months ago and told her to go away.

    Looking back at what you said about sex education also makes me shudder a bit. You know that abstinence-only sex education isn’t sex education, right?

    Now, who is it that doesn’t get it?

    Still you, I’m afraid.

    You know, I was wrong, MS. Maybe she should have to deal with a little aggression. I hadn’t read half of what she was saying, before I wrote that last comment about you and her. A lot of what she’s saying is freaking insane.

  195. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Watching El and LittleGramma go back and forth is just pitiful.

    Meh? Do you find any part of that from me to be pitiful? What part?

  196. Narf says

    @209 – EL
    Come on man, that would require him to actually make an argument of his own, rather than linking us to other people’s arguments. You ask too much of him. 😀

  197. Narf says

    … oh, and to add on to what I said in 206 and 208, add a thumbs up to everything EL said in 204.

  198. LittleGramma says

    Hmmm. Abortion isn’t killing a person? At what point is it a person? If it isn’t a person, then why bother with the medical procedure of abortion. Just wait for the pregnancy to come to full term; have the birth at home or wherever you happen to be at the time and kill it then and toss it in the trash. What’s the difference?

    Add to that. What’s the difference to termination of life when someone is unable to care for themselves and never will be able to do so? Where is the line? Who decides? Is it at birth? After an injury? When a genetic disease, or old age create the situation your every need be supplied by someone else? It’s certainly inconvenient to the caregivers and/or those who have to monetarily support this living being. Brain dead or not.

    I don’t see anywhere that I wrote that abstinence was the only sex education provided. No one truly believes teens are going to be abstinent or adults. Both know how babies are made. To claim they don’t have access to education is a lie. To prevent pregnancy through barrier or chemical methods may be or is an issue for some (OK even many in other countries) but still, they all know how pregnancy is created. And if they truly wanted to prevent it, would be abstinent.

    Your girlfriend and her sex education. She’s had an abortion or someone aborted one of your children. So of course, abortion is justified. Yet, the sex education any of us require to be responsible is up to each of us, individually.

    In less developed countries. Education is nice idea and many are there to help with the resources provided by government or privately funded organizations. But for overpopulation in their areas, they really need to be resolving this problem (if they consider it a problem) themselves, in their own government or private organizations.

    So support these organizations with your time or just money, rather than ragging on about it as if the rest of the world is insensitive or ignorant of the issue. These issues don’t have to be on everyone’s radar. There are other issues to deal with daily…and most people have enough to deal with daily as individuals or as families.

    Take India…They don’t yet have sewage systems under control. And you think population is their biggest concern? Yeah, more people, more sewage. Go help there/throw your money there and mortality would be less of an issue to even concern themselves with reducing their family size by choice.

    Before you say I’m cynical and don’t care, really think about it. How are you helping the situation…any situation you think is worth your time to spend contemplating or discussing? If you think it’s important, do something. If you don’t believe these other countries or people in general are smart enough to figure it out, then go there/to them and tell/show them how to do it.

    If you find they don’t want your help, then leave them alone. They will do what they want. Ultimately, that’s what is at the crux of all the issues that won’t get any of you your utopia. People will do what they want and only change what they are doing when it will make a difference to them. And only then.

    And in the mix are the sociopaths who don’t give a rip and will undermine support to others at every turn, just because it gives them a thrill. Yeah, I’m harping on the sociopaths, because they exist and will always exist.

    Life is what it is. Accept it.

  199. says

    Been away from the blog for a while. Coming back and seeing LittleGramma’s bizarre stream of consciousness ramblings, I think I’ll check back out for a while. You guys have got this, right?

  200. Monocle Smile says

    Hmmm. Abortion isn’t killing a person? At what point is it a person?

    When they have a functioning EEG, and we’ve known this for a couple of decades. The failure of the EEG is the point of clinical death; brain-dead is dead, and thus brain-alive is alive. Like most pro-lifers, you want keep this discussion as superficial and slogan-like as possible and ignore the science and actual distinctions here.

    No one truly believes teens are going to be abstinent or adults. Both know how babies are made. To claim they don’t have access to education is a lie

    How much time have you spent south of the Mason-Dixon line?

    Your girlfriend and her sex education. She’s had an abortion or someone aborted one of your children. So of course, abortion is justified.

    That’s pretty fucked up. You literally made that up on the spot for no reason.

    In less developed countries. Education is nice idea and many are there to help with the resources provided by government or privately funded organizations. But for overpopulation in their areas, they really need to be resolving this problem (if they consider it a problem) themselves, in their own government or private organizations

    There’s no response to this. I can only note that this is tantamount to unadulterated racism.

    Before you say I’m cynical and don’t care, really think about it. How are you helping the situation…any situation you think is worth your time to spend contemplating or discussing? If you think it’s important, do something. If you don’t believe these other countries or people in general are smart enough to figure it out, then go there/to them and tell/show them how to do it

    And now you’ve just resorted to bland, middle-of-the-road trolling. You know who says this shit? Useless people. It’s just projection on your part. You’re assuming that we’re all as selfish in our deeds as you are in your words. Lots of us here are activists of some sort, but I realize how that’s inconvenient for you.

  201. LittleGramma says

    Sure, of course, you are right. Northern born US citizen. Totally clueless. I’m OK with not being right about a lot of things.

    Continue……..

  202. Narf says

    @213 – LittleGramma

    Hmmm. Abortion isn’t killing a person? At what point is it a person? If it isn’t a person, then why bother with the medical procedure of abortion. Just wait for the pregnancy to come to full term; have the birth at home or wherever you happen to be at the time and kill it then and toss it in the trash. What’s the difference?

    I’m sorry, I can’t deal with you right now. That first paragraph was just so stupid, and after reading through it 5 or 6 times, I still can’t get my head wrapped around anything that seems like anything a sane, sober person would say.

    If you can’t tell the difference between a fetus smaller than my finger, which has nothing approaching a brain, and a thinking (even if the thoughts are still pretty basic), breathing, semi-autonomous baby, I don’t know how to help you. I’ll leave you to MS.

  203. LittleGramma says

    Did you miss the sentence telling pp at the outset that neither he or I were up to the IQ of the rest of you?

    To me a human being at any stage of development is a sentient being in progress. Snuffing it out because of inconvenience (ignored pregnancy protection, pregnancy protection didn’t work, or simply the female was used as warm place to put it, etc., regardless of the economy or country) is still inconceivable to me.

    If you leave a to normal full-term fetus alone in a room/outside without care, it will die. What’s the difference. Who decides?

    My IQ cannot get past that point. You can scratch your head all you want. You can pass this off to someone you think has a better grasp to get through to someone who is apparently clueless that abortion has been concluded to be of no consequence.

    I don’t believe there is a finite answer and you probably don’t either. What a woman (couple/father of the child/grandparents) can emotionally accept or has to do to survive this life (or both) is probably the only factor for what any woman will ultimately do with a life growing inside her that she cannot care for or is unwilling to rearrange her life care for. IE: Embarrassment of a pregnancy that would devastate a family/marriage; so that adopting out isn’t even an option. Yet I know of at least one example where a non-married couple adopted out their child….they both had young children from their former marriages.

    In my privileged life, born in the US although no wealth to speak of, I am allowed to have the opinion that abortion at any stage of growth is murder.

  204. Monocle Smile says

    My IQ cannot get past that point

    This might be the most bullshit of bullshit excuses I’ve ever seen. I’m leaning towards Narf’s side here.

    Yes, you’re allowed to have an opinion. And we’re allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is shortsighted, dangerous, poorly thought-out and utterly immoral. Stop fucking whining.

  205. LittleGramma says

    What excuse? What whining? I said I had concluded that you are likely smarter than me.

    And since you are all smarter than I am, I’ll leave you to bask in that knowledge. You can breathe your sighs of relief that I will no longer post.

  206. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Martin

    You guys have got this, right?

    Yea, we’re good. Thanks Martin.

    I really want to come out to Texas some time and see you all in person, and oogle like a silly fanboy.

    @LittleGramma in 213
    There are two good arguments in favor of some amount of abortion rights. Many strong feminists will start with the far-reaching one, but I happen to think that the less far reaching one is the more compelling one, so I’m going to start with the second argument.

    Let’s talk about chemical abortions via pills. Can be done in the first few weeks. During that time, the “fetus” is a mere collection of a few hundred cells. Undifferentiated cells. There’s no brain, not even neurons, and with no brain there is no mind. No mind -> not a person. At the very least, if it has no mind, then a pregnant woman, who is a person, should have sole discretion on what to do with the thing inside her body.

    Couple fun factoids. During this period of the first few weeks when you can get a chemical abortion via a pill, several interesting things can happen on their own. IIRC 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Identical twins is when the “fetus” in the first few weeks splits and becomes two independent human beings. During this same time, two separate “fetuses” can join together which will later produce a single human being; this is called a human chimera. If it grows up into an adult human being, it will have two completely separate copies of DNA. Some parts of its body will have one set of DNA, and another part of the its body will have another set of DNA. It’s really fascinating stuff.

    So, during this time in pregnancy when 1 “fetus” is 1 person, or 0 persons in the 50% cases of spontaneous abortions, or 2 people in the case of identical twins, or 1/2 of a person in cases of human chimeras, and where it has no brain and thus no mind, I feel quite confident and secure in allowing the pregnant woman to dispose of this mere hunk of flesh in whatever way she finds expedient, because that’s all it is – a mindless hunk of flesh.

    The second argument, which I personally find to be a little weaker, but still compelling, is this. Let’s grant for the moment that the fetus has a brain, has a mind, and is a person. One can make the comparison that disallowing abortion in this case is morally equivalent to taking people off the street involuntarily and doing forced organ donations, or forced blood donations. In all of these cases, we are using force against a human being, such as the pregnant woman, to conscript the body against their will, to care for another individual in society, such as the fetus. Generally we frown on forced organ donations and forced blood donations, and by this argument we should similarly frown on forced pregnancies.

    Actually, I remembered a third argument. It’s about death. We generally define death according to clinical braindeath. We should define the start of value-worthy life in the same fashion – start of brain functioning. (Of course, the comparison to forced organ donations would still be applicable.) If there is a “person” on a hospital bed whose brain has been destroyed by a disease, and I mean fully destroyed and not just in a coma, then that person is dead, and the thing on the table is a mere hunk of meat which deserves no moral nor legal consideration. It’s at that point that we bury the body (or cremate, or whatever).

    Suppose someone waxes to remove their hair. I bet that kills more cells of their body than a chemical abortion by pill in the first few weeks of pregnancy. Why should I care about one more than the other?

    And I don’t feel particularly motivated to deal with the rest of your shenanigans right now. Let’s see if we can make any headway on this topic.

    To me a human being at any stage of development is a sentient being in progress.

    Why should I care if it’s merely “in progress” and not in actuality? Why do you draw a bright line at fertilization? Why not track the “in progress” back further to unfertilized egg and sperm? Why should I care about the line that is fertilization?

    Also, as I explained above, sometimes a fertilized egg is on the road to becoming a human being, and sometimes it’s on the road to becoming 2 for identical twins, and sometimes 0 for spontaneous abortions, and sometimes 1/2 for human chimeras.

    Remember: I’m a humanist. I care about the well-being of actual people now and in the future. I do not care about the “well-being” of people in-potential.

    If you leave a to normal full-term fetus alone in a room/outside without care, it will die. What’s the difference. Who decides?

    The baby has a brain and a mind. Early term fetuses do not.

    The baby can survive independently of the mother. Early term fetuses do not.

    Another fun factiod. 90% of abortions occur in the first twelve weeks. That’s well before the brain is anywhere near developed to even call it a proper brain. From my personal experience, only a few defenders of abortion rights will defend the right of a mother to have an elective abortion in the 9th month of pregnancy. Note that I said “few”, not “none”. You just have to go over to pharyngula and I’m sure you’ll find plenty who will do that.

    Thus, you are largely attacking a strawman. Most abortion right defenders do not defend this exceedingly rare, almost mythical abortion of a 9th month fetus. As a practical matter, if it would settle the issue, I strongly suspect most abortion right defenders would be entirely cool with the limits of Roe v Wade which is no restrictions on elective abortions for the first three months. That is the position I intend to defend with vigor. If you want to argue about 9th month abortions, I suggest you go to pharyngula or some other hotbet of strong abortion defenders (not sure where that would be offhand).

    I am allowed to have the opinion that abortion at any stage of growth is murder.

    That is correct. Also, we are allowed to disagree with you, publicly assert that you are wrong, and even ridicule you for holding such a ridiculous position.

    PS: I haven’t started to ridicule you – yet. You’ll know when I do.

  207. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Snuffing it out because of inconvenience (ignored pregnancy protection, pregnancy protection didn’t work, or simply the female was used as warm place to put it, etc., regardless of the economy or country) is still inconceivable to me.

    Bolding added.

    I’ll tell you what’s inconceivable – how you can be so blatantly misogynistic, anti-sex, and prudish. Especially the anti-women part. I assume you’ve had some “romantic” contact with women. How can you look at yourself in the mirror when you must be such a colossal asshole? Have you no shame, no decency? “The female”. Dehumanizing shit. Fuck you.

  208. LittleGramma says

    New word for me. Misogynist: A person who hates or doesn’t trust women.
    EL
    No. Avatar is Little Gramma. My avatar describes me very well. I gave birth to two sons and to date have three grandsons.

    Using a female as a warm place to put it is what men who consider women/girls as chattel or women haters (rapists) do. At least one of you here said abortion was an option for that reason in countries where the general male consensus is women/girls are chattel.

    I did not have this degree of sexual abuse happen to me, but we did have a pedophile who favored preschool girls in our neighborhood who only when I reached my twenties did I realize he’d molested every little girl including my three younger sisters; who I thought would be safe if I allowed myself to be his victim (1961 age 5).

    And I’m not saying abortion isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen for whatever reason a woman/family NEEDS to have it done. I’m just saying I consider it killing a person. In fact, I would have three nieces or nephews well into their 40s if one of my sisters hadn’t had a child adopted out and then two abortions. Apparently, the molestation affected her more than it did me, or her drug use addled her brain regarding pregnancy prevention. And the boys she had sex with weren’t considering consequences either, except for a warm place to put it. Really, that’s all she was to them…although I have little doubt she also enjoyed herself.

    The statistics for abortion show me that for this to not have happened worldwide for all the centuries that women figured out they could manage one and still live, there would be overpopulation.

    To ultimately prevent unwanted new people, people will have to be kinder to each other. That’s it in a nutshell. The simple version: To be kind is to consider the consequence of your actions before acting on them. But we don’t live in a Utopia. So we are stuck with the way things are now and will always be.

    I likely won’t become an activist one way or the other, but if it comes to a vote, I will vote for much earlier termination than is currently in Washington state.

    And the only women I won’t give the time of day are a former daughter-in-law and a sister. Sociopath and narcissist in that order. Not the sister referred to above.

  209. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You didn’t engage with the substance of anything I said, and you didn’t answer any of my questions.

  210. LittleGramma says

    Oh, excuse me. You refer to 221 and you were looking for me to answer why you should care. I thought you were stating a fact…that you don’t care. Other than that, I cannot know why you care about anything, so how could I know why you should care one way or another.

    I was lead to believe you had already answered yourself. “Remember: I’m a humanist. I care about the well-being of actual people now and in the future. I do not care about the “well-being” of people in-potential.”

    We both have the tendency to exaggerated and generalize, so to be honest I think we are at a stalemate.

    However, I’ll answer this one.
    “Why do you draw a bright line at fertilization?” Because that is where I choose to draw the line. Just like the majority of voters in each state have decided where they can most tolerate the line.

    My last post was a response to 222 and I believe I covered those assumptions.

  211. Narf says

    Okay, now that I have the energy to deal with this stuff …
    @213 – LittleGramma

    Hmmm. Abortion isn’t killing a person? At what point is it a person?

    This is so mind-numbingly simple. Once you discard the religious nonsense about souls, a person is their brain … or more specifically, a person is the process that goes on inside of a living brain. If there’s no brain activity going on, as is the case during the period in which you can have an abortion at will, there’s no person inside.

    That’s why your later statement about brain-dead patients is also silly. Once a person is brain-dead, they’re dead. Once the person is gone, the carrying case for the brain is just spare parts and should be treated as such. Lots of other people could use those parts.

    If it isn’t a person, then why bother with the medical procedure of abortion. Just wait for the pregnancy to come to full term; have the birth at home or wherever you happen to be at the time and kill it then and toss it in the trash. What’s the difference?

    This is the part that broke my brain, last night. How do you even come up with an insane statement like that? Even forgetting the part about it not being a person yet, at the point at which you can have an at-will abortion, this is still insane.

    Just wait for the pregnancy, which will take a huge toll upon the woman’s body, so you can kill the baby once it’s born? Do you really think that going through a pregnancy doesn’t cause any trauma? You’ve had kids. You know better. At least the male anti-choicers have that excuse of not being able to empathize with women.

    This is so freaking offensive. Either scrape off the uterine liking, taking the tiny, unthinking fetus with it, or kill a baby with a functional brain. No difference …
    What’s wrong with you?

    Add to that. What’s the difference to termination of life when someone is unable to care for themselves and never will be able to do so? Where is the line? Who decides? Is it at birth? After an injury? When a genetic disease, or old age create the situation your every need be supplied by someone else? It’s certainly inconvenient to the caregivers and/or those who have to monetarily support this living being. Brain dead or not.

    Your last sentence shows the inanity of the whole proposition.

    Brain dead or not? Screw that. You dismiss the one important consideration of the scenario as if it’s nothing. Your thought processes are completely screwed up on this issue.

    As long as there’s a person inside, he/she decides. This is why living wills are so damned important. If someone is unconscious and unable to express his/her opinions, the person who has power of attorney has to do the best job at guessing what the unconscious person would want.

    I don’t see anywhere that I wrote that abstinence was the only sex education provided. No one truly believes teens are going to be abstinent or adults. Both know how babies are made. To claim they don’t have access to education is a lie. To prevent pregnancy through barrier or chemical methods may be or is an issue for some (OK even many in other countries) but still, they all know how pregnancy is created. And if they truly wanted to prevent it, would be abstinent.

    You are so freaking oblivious to the world around you. Right here in the US … not in other countries … many women have difficulty getting proper contraceptive care. And the Republican party is trying to make it even more difficult. Do you pay any attention to politics?

    The Republican party does these things in steps. Right now, they’re busy trying to ban insurance companies from paying for contraception. The next part of the plan, which some of the more extreme nuts have already moved on to, is to make almost all forms of contraception illegal.

    And fuck you for calling me a liar. I live in the southeast. I know what the sex education is like around here, outside of the major urban areas. My girlfriend grew up in rural Georgia, and her sex education was absolutely full of lies. If you pay any attention to the news, you’ll see the sort of lies that a lot of Republican legislators are trying to force into the official educational materials.

    Your girlfriend and her sex education. She’s had an abortion or someone aborted one of your children. So of course, abortion is justified. Yet, the sex education any of us require to be responsible is up to each of us, individually.

    The only proper response to this is “Fuck you.” The fact that you’re absolutely wrong about it is a side issue. Where do you get off, trying to shove this kind of bullshit on someone?

    For one thing, if my girlfriend and I had gotten pregnant, we would have had the baby. We’re more than financially capable of handling a few kids, and we want some, at some point.

    You may not be aware of this, but the most important part of the pro-choice position is choice. I would choose to have the baby, in almost any situation barring major fetal defect, assuming the girl in question was on board with the proposal. It’s her body that would be undergoing the trauma, after all, so she gets the deciding vote.

    And the rest of your comment is some myopic bullshit about other countries, which is completely irrelevant. I’m not talking about problems with sex education in other countries. I’m talking about the corruption of our education by the religious nutjobs, right here in the US.

  212. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Depends upon what your definition of the American Dream is, I suppose. Many people would measure success as becoming middle-class, something that most people could possibly achieve through hard work and determination. A comfortable life may be what was originally dreamt of by immigrants, not a life of luxury. Again, I blame that shift on Hollywood and reality TV. There really are too many people out there who appear to have become wealthy and without a care by pure luck.

    It would be silly to expect most people to become rich, and why would you want to? Are the rich really happier than everyone else, or do they just have a different set of problems? Just take the various examples of people who win big in the lotteries. Often, they end up less happy than what people assume. There may be something to the old saying about money not being able to buy happiness.

  213. Narf says

    @218 – LittleGramma

    To me a human being at any stage of development is a sentient being in progress. Snuffing it out because of inconvenience (ignored pregnancy protection, pregnancy protection didn’t work, or simply the female was used as warm place to put it, etc., regardless of the economy or country) is still inconceivable to me.

    This whole in potentia argument is also completely wrongheaded. Following that logic, a sperm is a potential human being. If a guy pulls out before coming, and the girl would have gotten pregnant without that step, they just killed their baby.

    A blastocyst is not a human being yet. It’s a clump of human cells, but it’s not a human being, any more than the hangnail I just pulled off earlier is. “Potential” is meaningless, unless you want to make all birth control illegal, as a weapon for killing potential babies.

    If you leave a to normal full-term fetus alone in a room/outside without care, it will die. What’s the difference. Who decides?

    We decide, because we are thinking beings.

    Your use of language is so sloppy. I can’t tell if you’re doing it deliberately, to be dishonest, or if your thoughts are just that muddled on the subject. What do you even mean by a full-term fetus? Are you talking about a baby? After it’s born, it’s a baby. I’d also argue that the fetus’s status as a fetus transitions over to being a baby, sometime very late 2rd trimester or very early 3rd trimester, once it has a person inside of the brain. That’s why 3rd trimester abortions are illegal, except in the most extreme circumstances.

    There’s also the matter of effort exerted and the coercion of that effort from a specific person. We can and do have a system for taking care of babies that the mother doesn’t want or can’t raise. We can delegate that responsibility. We don’t have a system in place with a few thousand surrogate mothers to incubate an unwanted blastocyst. If you don’t think we should such a system, as I don’t, then we’ve got nothing, and it’s immoral to take away the mother’s bodily autonomy in favor of an unthinking mass of cells that isn’t an actual person yet.

  214. Narf says

    @214 – Martin Wagner
    Yeah, I think we’ve got it. Did you catch most of the interaction with ProjectP? It was one Inigo Montoya moment after another, and the guy doesn’t understand what basic skepticism is. So freaking painful.

  215. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Saving the world from overpopulation would mean changing all societies the way you describe, but do you really think that this is likely or even possible before a tipping point is reached? Conservatism is still flourishing in many parts of the world. Some places, like Iran, have actually become more conservative over the years. I don’t have much faith that the internet will liberate women in every culture soon enough.

  216. Narf says

    @227 – kudlak

    It would be silly to expect most people to become rich, and why would you want to? Are the rich really happier than everyone else, or do they just have a different set of problems?

    I think you’re falling for one of the lies that poor people tell themselves and each other, so they don’t feel so bad about being poor.  I think you’re also considering a very skewed set of people, when you’re thinking about this, as demonstrated by:

    Just take the various examples of people who win big in the lotteries. Often, they end up less happy than what people assume. There may be something to the old saying about money not being able to buy happiness.

    Well duh.  😀  Pople who play lotteries are not the most financial adept people.  You can’t hold them up as representative of rich people.  They had wealth thrust upon them by sheer chance, and most of them have no freaking clue how to deal with it, which is what I would expect of someone who played the lottery a whole lot in the first place.

    Sure, there are plenty of actors and other rich people who have drug problems.  Guess what?  There are plenty of poor people who have drug problems, too.  The rich people have access to much better care though, when their friends get together and hold an intervention.  They also don’t end up in crushing debt as a result.

    Rich people with a drug problem get let out on probation and get to go to swanky drug rehab retreats.  Poor people with a drug problem get thrown in prison and have the rest of their life fucked up by a criminal record.

    I also feel like you’re ignoring those who became rich through business, like Romney and his ilk.  I’m fairly certain that most of them absolutely love their lives.

    Sure, money can’t buy happiness, but it can make you a lot more comfortable and relaxed in your self-imposed misery.

  217. kudlak says

    @projectp
    The problem with your theory is that most examples of technocrat leadership happen to be worse than our present systems. There are some small-scale and limited application successes, but in large-scale examples like China there’s no indication that their ideas and decisions are any better. Just look at the Three Gorges dam project and how they handled the 2003 SARS epidemic. So, again, I have to ask why you have so much faith in this model?

  218. Narf says

    @225 – LittleGramma

    “Why do you draw a bright line at fertilization?” Because that is where I choose to draw the line. Just like the majority of voters in each state have decided where they can most tolerate the line.

    That’s not an answer. What premises caused you to draw the line there? There’s always something.

    Sure, eventually you’ll end up back at something like “Because I’m evolutionarily programmed to feel empathy for those in my in-group, and I’ve extended my in-group to include all of humanity (or all thinking beings).” You can go back a lot further than you did, though.

    You get stuff like people arguing that all life is sacred, or something similarly fuzzy and nonsensical, when arguing for animal rights or something like that.
    Really, random-example person? You do all you can to save microbes? You do all you can to preserve the life of the skin cells you shed? “Life” is a stupid standard to apply to anything.

    You have to pick through things and figure out what you REALLY stand for, if you want to have a rational position. Use as much precision of language as you can manage. Which line gets crossed at fertilization, and why do you care about that line?

    For that matter, how do you feel about the genocide of all of those fertilized blastocysts which never implant in the uterine wall? You know that the majority of fertilized eggs never implant, right? That makes fertilization an even more useless dividing line than I already considered it to be.

    What are you latching onto, though? Think about this. Are you getting stuck on some sort of vitalistic thinking? You might have left behind the nonsense about souls, but a lot of new-agey, woo-woo atheists get stuck on a lot of nonsense about vitalism. I don’t know where you’re at with the whole religion thing, but you probably have a lot of baggage left, if you’re drawing lines like this, with fertilization of an egg.

    Like I said before, I care about people. People are minds/brains. That’s what informs my decisions, on issues like this.

  219. Narf says

    @232 – kudlak
    Where I come down on the issue is somewhere in the middle. Going with any pure system is likely to lead to disaster. All systems have both strengths and weaknesses. The best way to go about it is with some sort of hybrid system that grabs the strengths of multiple different kinds of systems and makes use of them in areas where they’ll be beneficial.

    For example, in your earlier comments on the subject, you seem to be coming down way, way too far on the capitalist side of things. I wrote that off as contrast to the position you were arguing against, though. When you’re arguing against someone who’s going pure socialist, you can’t help but look a bit harder in the other direction.

    I’m assuming you aren’t some sort of crazed, pure-free-market, anarcho-capitalist libertarian?

  220. Narf says

    @230 – kudlak
    Well, we’re going to have some sort of social balancing happen, at some point, assuming that we don’t wipe ourselves out before then. It’s going to be nasty in some way. It always is. The big question about countries like Iran is whether they’ll do it to themselves or whether someone from the outside will. Doing it from the outside doesn’t seem to be working very well, though, judging from what happened with Iraq.

    If it happens after the tipping point, we’ll just have more of a mess to clean up afterward. It’s the nature of systems to balance themselves, one way or the other.

  221. projectp says

    Kudlak,
    I will respond to you, thank you for refraining from all the ad Hom’s like the others.

    “The problem with your theory is that most examples of technocrat leadership happen to be worse than our present systems.”

    There has never been an economic system that used resourced based economics. Forget Technocracy or the Venus project in particular. I hate to keep having to say that, but I view those as starting ideas. Much refinement is needed.

    Therefore, the example you gave is not a model I have faith in at all and is the model I have a problem with.
    Why? because they still use money/commodity valuation.
    Money is based on Faith/confidence. I.E the economic system can collapse/crash etc even the though physical resources are still there, the Technology is still there the People with technical ability are still there.
    Also all money systems depend on growth Having a system based on growth in a finite world is asinine when you live on a finite planet that has finite resources.

    I am going to break it down as simply as I possibly can for the last time. “it” being MY aspirations for a future system of distribution. I am skeptical that any of you guys really understand them though because of your arguments show that clearly, to me.

    I want a system that is engineered from the ground up by the scientific method. Not belief in imaginary tokens of debt OR backed by gold, because (money back by gold) is not tied to anything in the physical world.
    The value of gold is also based on scarcity which I think we can agree on is not very smart when our technological world can produce more than we can consume.

    Going with a RESOURCE based approach, the system is then based on the real word. Faith/confidence never affects distribution. Why? Because any fear can be dealt with by doing a simple inventory.

    The drive of the system then starts to push for efficiency and to avoid thing like, Planned Obsolescence and False Scarcity. We move away from structural violence.

    I think you guys are expecting the plan to be further along than it actually is. Some of the details you want simply do not exist yet but IMHO are not hard to solve at all.

    If you don’t agree fine, just say you don’t agree and why, or not… but I am not going to sit here and have a mud slinging name calling fit with people. Why do you guys do that to everyone? it certainly is not productive and only creates animosity and barriers.

  222. LittleGramma says

    226
    Again, excuse me. I’m not going to search for the one who decided I should include the globe when talking about contraception, reproductive education and abortion. I was talking originally about the US…and apparently I was unaware that there are states that compare to third world countries.

    So let’s stay in the US. Was your girlfriend an orphan without responsible adult guidance or care? Were her or her classmates parents from the backwoods and refused to talk about sex? That’s where they should be learning it, and preteen/pre-menstrual. Granted, you get some poor kids (literally poor or neglected, abused, whatever) whose parents can’t/won’t rise to the occasion. Too young themselves, other ridiculousness which prevents them with dealing with the reality of their own children.

    Active parents, should be adult enough to ask their daughters if they are going to be an active participant in something beyond her financial/emotional/life capacity and get her a prescription for chemical prevention, pills, IUD, injected under the skin of the arm, barrier, etc. Or driving home to their sons to buy and use barrier protection unless they truly plan to be a young parent and spouse. Are there actual barriers to prevent girls/of age women from buying/obtaining pregnancy prevention? Really, in this day and age? Unable to cross state lines, use the internet to purchase supplies?

    Is there some barrier for young people to furthering their own education on sex and reproduction? Libraries with books, computers at those libraries, personal computers, smart phones, etc. Hell, ask a neighbor who seems to have a few brain cells. If I could do it back in the early 70s without computers, I have faith that young people have better access than I do and everyone should realize they are ultimately responsible for their own education. Even if that education is found in a college or university. Grants, scholarships, a job or several.

    Then again, maybe I’m slightly above average, and just that slight difference separates me from those who don’t have a clue that they can also know these things.

    As I said before, if you have enough money to party and have planned sex, you have enough money to buy what you need to make some effort to protect yourself from an unwanted conception.

    Yeah, I rudely threw in the potential that your girlfriend has already had an abortion. What person hasn’t known at least one girl/woman who has had one…or more. A few girls in my college dorm left school because they apparently didn’t know how to prevent pregnancy.

    And as before, if you cannot access contraception…don’t have sex. Grown responsible adults abstain/wait for just such reasons…if the condoms have run out, or a pill was accidentally skipped, etc. Children don’t NEED to have sex. Period.

    If you can’t pay for something, you don’t buy it. Right?

    I advocate my tax dollars are not to be spent for some child to have sex because that knucklehead child decided it was his/her right. Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Tea Party, etc. etc. It’s not their job to legislate that we responsible adults/parents fund others’ children on this issue.

    If you’ve decided you/anyone deserves public assistance to have play sex before you’re even old enough to vote, let alone live on your own without the public assistance/parent/s to support you, then continue to think like a child.

    I never considered pregnancy a trauma. Medical abortion, yes, it would be trauma. Women that I’ve seen come into hospitals’ emergency room are quite traumatized when a natural abortion occurs when their pregnancy has been a reality for even a few weeks. I also realize that natural abortions can occur before one has even missed a cycle or around the same time. Not traumatic, but considerably more painful and prolific than a normal period. For some a normal period can be painful.

    What news channels are you watching? I refuse to watch the news and generally avoid it. I agree it’s full of lies or just stuff made up, speculation mostly, but no real facts. Now if you are watching news directly from the House of Representatives, etc. then you may be on mark. I don’t watch it, there isn’t anything I can do to change the crap going on. Throwing money at it won’t help, standing on corners, in schools won’t help. People will help themselves only when they realize they are capable…until then they won’t accept real help other than a handout.

    My plate is full being a responsible citizen and when the opportunity arises to guide the grandsons to be responsible as well. Paying taxes and voting to in some way make a difference in how tax dollars are spent and laws are made. But really, very little effect.

    Oh, maybe I have some effect to share here that being a responsible adult means taking the reigns for your own life/education (for the majority not found in schools except and sometimes not even then for a very specific field of study) and paying your own way including your own rent, medical care, children, auto, home, health and life insurance, etc.. Lucky if you can find an employer who will subsidize health insurance, but I know that’s becoming an opt out option for many private sector employers. Do not ever expect the government/your fellow citizens to pay your way.

    Now, if you don’t want any more responses from me, then stop responding to common sense with swearing that I don’t get it. Oh, I do get it. You are a child pretending to be an adult, because your parts happen to work and you (for now) can hold a job that would care for a family, but that’s just not convenient right now. So if it happens that current girlfriend becomes pregnant and decides it’s not convenient right now to have a child, you are off the hook, because it’s her body.
    Although you say you/she would like children someday, you aren’t adult enough to prepare a home right now for that possibility. Because the probability rises every time you have unprotected sex or even with contraception (not fool proof). Adults who want children are responsible enough to marry and actively prepare…and if not marry to actively do the paperwork to make sure both are equally responsible if they desire to have the same automatic rights as married couples. Whatever that means/entails. That would be your issue to resolve as you desire, not mine.

    And don’t throw gays into this. I don’t give a rip. They can do the same to have the legal paperwork done if marriage isn’t an option in their state.

  223. LittleGramma says

    233 “That’s not an answer. What premises caused you to draw the line there? There’s always something.”

    Because unlike you, if an egg and sperm meet and begin development to become a human and has the potential to become a normal person/baby in all physical and mental ways as determined at birth, I don’t believe it is up to me to stop the development at any stage of becoming a human being for my convenience.

    Convenience (planned parenthood) should have been considered before play acting a responsible adult with the potential for reproduction.

    But yeah, even Bonobo apes get it on just for the hell of it with whatever warm orifice is convenient. Are you a Bonobo? Well, not a Bonobo for sure, because they don’t kill another male’s offspring until born. We humans are the only ones who kill our own children before they are born. Real enlightened aren’t we?

  224. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Should poor people really feel bad about being poor? I actually see that as one of the lies that people tell themselves; that you can’t be happy unless you have oodles of cash.

    And not everyone who plays the lotto has that as their retirement plan. That’s another myth, I think. Many of the examples I’ve seen are of working people who actually make good money, but happen to buy the occasional ticket. Then, they suddenly find themselves rich which actually brings a load of different problems and responsibilities with it. Family pressures and every charity you can imagine with its hand out. It’s not all as glamorous as it’s made to seem. Even people like Romney and his ilk have problems, they’re just different problems than the rest of us have. I think that you’re still too into the myth that money buys happiness.

  225. projectp says

    People say money doesn’t buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person’s annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don’t report any greater degree of happiness.

    At $75,000, that effect disappears. For people who earn that much or more, individual temperament and life circumstances have much more sway over their lightness of heart than money. The study doesn’t say why $75,000 is the benchmark, but “it does seem to me a plausible number at which people would think money is not an issue,” says Deaton. At that level, people probably have enough expendable cash to do things that make them feel good, like going out with friends. (The federal poverty level for a family of four, by the way, is $22,050.)

    I live in Brooklyn, NY when I walk outside everyone has a miserable scowl on their face. I hear people arguing/stressing over money every other day because they simply do not have enough to meet their needs. (I live in the Canarsie area) There is a different attitude in the wealthy areas, people smile say have a nice day etc. Esp when i ride out to the Hamptons. It’s night and day.

  226. kudlak says

    @projectp
    So, you don’t want to consider any governments that have had technocratic elements as examples, but place all your faith in a purely theoretical model that you say still needs to be refined?

    Again, why are you so amazed by our skepticism?

    And, again, you avoid all of my concerns. If you do away with all the waste being produced and make the system as efficient as possible, aren’t you going to require less employment than we currently have? Will people actually behave like middle-class people currently do if everyone is brought to the same level? Will people still be free to pursue their artistic talents and, if so, what kind of market will the technocrats allow? Like a politician looking to replace an existing government you are long on promises, but short on any actual plan.

  227. kudlak says

    @projectp
    But what if you removed all the poorer people like you assume your system would? Would people still feel content when they effectively become the only class, or even the “lower” class to a moderately higher class you would also allow?

  228. projectp says

    From what i have studied I love it. As technology progresses we would work less hours for the same income. Remember we can produce more than we can consume. Dividing an abundance with a scarcity based value is not intelligent.

    Less hours of employment is a goal not a problem. I am not amazed by your scepticism now that I know a little more about who I am talking too. It took me over a year of talking to a great friend of mine before one day he said wow this really makes a lot of sense.

    With all the free time created the artistic world would explode with new innovation and ideas.
    Using a system like we have now accelerates environmental destruction and is dependant on waste. This is not sustainable.

  229. projectp says

    kudlak ,

    They are unhappy because their needs are not being met, not because they are jealous.

  230. Narf says

    @239 – kudlak

    Should poor people really feel bad about being poor? I actually see that as one of the lies that people tell themselves; that you can’t be happy unless you have oodles of cash.

    I can’t offer an opinion about ‘should’. There’s often a bit of resentment, though.

    And I never said that money makes you happy or that you can’t be happy without money. It just helps free you up, so you can make yourself happy more easily, if you’re inclined to do so. It’s an enabler, not a magic happy drug.

    Although I guess you could buy magic happy drugs with your money, if you’re into that sort of thing. And if you’re rich, you won’t be punished as much for possession of your magic happy drugs.

  231. Narf says

    @238 – LittleGramma

    But yeah, even Bonobo apes get it on just for the hell of it with whatever warm orifice is convenient. Are you a Bonobo? Well, not a Bonobo for sure, because they don’t kill another male’s offspring until born. We humans are the only ones who kill our own children before they are born. Real enlightened aren’t we?

    Are you serious? I’m beginning to suspect that you’re a pro-choicer who’s just fucking with us, trying to make anti-choicers look bad. It seems like everything you say is more offensive and more immoral than the last.

    So, we have two cases. We have a human terminating a pregnancy in a fairly clean, low impact medical procedure, before the fetus is developed enough to have a functional brain that can feel anything or know anything … before there’s a person inside of the fetus. Then we have a bonobo murdering a baby bonobo, which is conscious, mobile, and fully functional, except for a bit of dependence upon the mother, for food and protection.

    You’re saying that you think that the bonobo’s act of murder is more moral than an abortion. Are you sure that’s what you mean to say? Because that’s what you said.

    You’re an immoral monster.

  232. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Not everybody works a crap job for minimal pay. Many people actually love what they do for work. I know that I do. I would continue doing what I do up until I get too old to continue, if I could, but you would have me cut back my hours and do what? Sit around all day losing bone density like the people in Wall.E.? My impression was that those people were as unhappy with nothing to do as unemployed people are.

    As you said, many people would spend this spare time inventing and producing things. However, many of those things will undoubtedly considered junk by other people and unworthy of the resources put into them, right? Will there be a market for what they produce in your technocracy? How does one measure the value of art in your system?

    First you have to identify the difference between needs and wants. Many people seem to consider 60 inch plasma screens a need, for example. Many other people actually do need to feel challenged by their work, and vindicated by the raises in pay and other promotions that come with doing a good job.

    Again, what you’re describing sounds a lot like Earth in the Star Trek universe, but only so many people can be employed by Starfleet, and you never get to see what the rest of the population does.

  233. Monocle Smile says

    @LittleGramma

    Because pretty much everything you posted isn’t worth a dead cockroach, I’ll just ask this:

    What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, I would have to suffer multiple grievous head injuries to even start thinking like you. It’s like you warped in from some bizarro world, because none of the bullshit you posted is connected to reality. Seriously, you might need help.

  234. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @kudlak in 230
    I don’t know. I can hope.

    @LittleGramma

    Is there some barrier for young people to furthering their own education on sex and reproduction? Libraries with books, computers at those libraries, personal computers, smart phones, etc. Hell, ask a neighbor who seems to have a few brain cells. If I could do it back in the early 70s without computers, I have faith that young people have better access than I do and everyone should realize they are ultimately responsible for their own education. Even if that education is found in a college or university. Grants, scholarships, a job or several.

    This is an argument against all public education whatsoever.

    advocate my tax dollars are not to be spent for some child to have sex because that knucklehead child decided it was his/her right. Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Tea Party, etc. etc. It’s not their job to legislate that we responsible adults/parents fund others’ children on this issue.

    And yet you’re willing to pay far far more because kids who have unwanted kids are a far, far bigger drain on the economy and welfare system. Unless you’re also proposing that we should cut welfare and just let them die, which would make you a heartless bastard. Providing free contraception to everyone is the cheapest public policy we can do.

    Now if you are watching news directly from the House of Representatives, etc. then you may be on mark.

    It’s hard to imagine a worse source of news.

    BBC is good. It’s sad when the best news shows on TV are comedy shows, such as Last Week Tonight and The Daily Show. I’m being serious here.

    Because unlike you, if an egg and sperm meet and begin development to become a human and has the potential to become a normal person/baby in all physical and mental ways as determined at birth, I don’t believe it is up to me to stop the development at any stage of becoming a human being for my convenience.

    You’re just restating the conclusion. You’re not saying why. I could use that argument and say that the unfertilized egg is in development to become a human being, and I fail to see a meaningful difference. Can you state why you disagree without just restating your diasgreement?

    Again, could you please save us all some time. Are you religious? Do you believe in immaterial magic souls? If yes, then we can understand where you are coming from. That is the answer we are looking for. Of course, we think you’re completely wrong, but at least that would answer the “why?” question which we have been asking and which you have not been answering.

  235. projectp says

    Kudlak @247,

    “As you said, many people would spend this spare time inventing and producing things. However, many of those things will undoubtedly considered junk by other people and unworthy of the resources put into them, right? Will there be a market for what they produce in your technocracy? How does one measure the value of art in your system?”

    If any idea or invention is not better it will not make it most likely. I am assuming this though.
    There will be no “market” as we know it, those are obsolete for reasons already stated.
    There is never enough time for me to do all the things I want to do, I can’t imagine ever just sitting around.
    I NEVER watch TV or sports, I am either learning, writing music or enjoying the outdoors or working. Even if I didn’t work I still wouldn’t have enough time.

    “Again, what you’re describing sounds a lot like Earth in the Star Trek universe, but only so many people can be employed by Starfleet, and you never get to see what the rest of the population does”

    That’s right, but most likely everyone does not want to be in Starfleet. I wouldn’t. But everyone would still have the same amount of purchasing power because we can produce more than we can consume. It is ridiculous to ration an abundance. People get a real reward from achievements not monetary compensation. There are people who work for free that do just that.

    As far as art goes, that can be copied. The values on it are already completely arbitrary.
    And the cost would once again be done in resource cost.

  236. Monocle Smile says

    I NEVER watch TV or sports, I am either learning, writing music or enjoying the outdoors or working. Even if I didn’t work I still wouldn’t have enough time

    My comments about human contact continue to grow in accuracy.

    That’s right, but most likely everyone does not want to be in Starfleet. I wouldn’t. But everyone would still have the same amount of purchasing power because we can produce more than we can consume

    That’s woo economics, plain and simple. You have zero idea how the world works or how humans function.

    People get a real reward from achievements not monetary compensation. There are people who work for free that do just that

    Have fun eating. You have yet to address EL’s main objections, mostly because you can’t.

    As far as art goes, that can be copied. The values on it are already completely arbitrary.
    And the cost would once again be done in resource cost

    That’s fucked up. I wouldn’t want to live in your nihilistic society even if it could “work.”

  237. projectp says

    “My comments about human contact continue to grow in accuracy.”

    let me just say this. the other comment reflects a complete misunderstanding of the ideas presented.
    I just spent the entire weekend with my girlfriend and her son. you really have no idea what you are talking about.
    When someone is as consistently wrong as you are, there just isn’t any point in addressing them because they will always come back with nonsense and just waste time. So when you do not get any more replies from me, just know that I consider you a littleGramma the siamese twins here on this blog. Twins that do not deserve any response.

  238. Monocle Smile says

    @projectpiss

    You’ve been in make-shit-up-as-I-go mode for more than half of your time here, and that doesn’t appear to be slowing down. It’s pretty easy to see why most have given up on communicating with you, although you’ll undoubtedly go full troll and blame everyone else for your own shortcomings again.

  239. chikoppi says

    Assume I am a famous artist. I use a process the produces completely unique, unreplicable original works. Not even I can duplicate them. The process requires a modest 100 energy credits (about the same as to produce a common household appliance). My works are sought after as status symbols (I will only be able to produce a few hundred in my lifetime).

    I produce a work that, while requiring no more energy than usual, is generally agreed to be of surpassing quality.

    Q1: what purchase price is assigned to this work?
    Q2: what process is used to determine who gets to buy it?

  240. projectp says

    It simply wouldn’t be replicated, Just as it wouldn’t be now. And would “cost “100 kilowatt hours” Also, iIf someone thought a piece of art gave them status somehow, they might want to have a talk with their psychiatrist.

    “I produce a work that, while requiring no more energy than usual, is generally agreed to be of surpassing quality.”

    That statement doesn’t make sense to me, The quality in it sure seems completely arbitrary. if it had a function, surely it would be a machine of some sort and thus be reproducible. Your example reminds of this headline “Kanye West’s $120 Plain White “Hip-hop” T-Shirt Sells Out Instantly” The people who buy this T-shirt are buying the marketing behind the shirt not the shirt.

  241. projectp says

    Chikoppi,

    Let me add that there is no need to add an intangible value to an items cost. That is what is being AVOIDED.
    You don’t need the “extra” value when you are already getting the same amount of purchasing power.
    No one is in debt to anyone there would be no such thing.

  242. Monocle Smile says

    @projectpunk

    That statement doesn’t make sense to me, The quality in it sure seems completely arbitrary. if it had a function, surely it would be a machine of some sort and thus be reproducible

    Statements like this are why I find your stupid system horrifying regardless of stability and why I think you’re lying your ass off when you claim to be writing music.

  243. Narf says

    Oooooookay, wow. This guy is further gone than I thought. He doesn’t understand basic market forces. He also seems to be going full-on Marxism, in that he’s trying to argue that mastery of an art does not add any value to the goods you produce with that skill. Reality indicates otherwise.

    Not all high-value items are inflated to their cost in a way similar to that of the Kanye West t-shirts. People sometimes paying stupidly high prices for an item, because of marketing, does not invalidate concept of a master artisan adding more value to an item than the coldly-calculated cost of that item.

  244. Monocle Smile says

    @Narf
    It gets even worse than that. I’ve dealt with this plenty, but my lady friend is a materials scientist. She, more than pretty much anyone else, can tell you with maximal certainty that it takes just as much energy and resources to produce a shitty part that fails tests as it does an “identical” quality part that performs to spec. projectp here wants to argue that absolutely everything is no more than the rawest sum of its components, and that couldn’t be more false.

  245. projectp says

    Narf, you guys are just stuck in an antiquated way of thinking. a lot of indoctrination went into making the modern consumer. No matter how great the art when selling it for money the item is not tied to a real word value. I would be happy to give my music away in a system such as this and the feeling of accomplishment would come from people enjoying the music.

    Why would you need to have more purchasing power when in the resource based system you would have all you need or want? that just doesn’t make sense. I have a CD on Amazon.com and probably would have been glad to share that with you guys but it has my real name on it. And frankly some of you people scare the shit out of me. Although the theme around the album was balanced energy and never directly mentioned changing the system etc.

  246. projectp says

    Also to say i do not understand the price system is ludicrous. I don’t agree with it. I think it is primitive and outdated. I know how things are valued in this system very well, in a very non-scientific way.

  247. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    It simply wouldn’t be replicated, Just as it wouldn’t be now. And would “cost “100 kilowatt hours” Also, iIf someone thought a piece of art gave them status somehow, they might want to have a talk with their psychiatrist.

    Just curious…why do you think an original Van Gogh is valued more highly than a print, forgery, or simililar-looking work by a skilled artist? Why do some people spend $1,500 on a suit when they could get one from a discount store for $150? Why spend $80 on a haircut when you could get a cheap $10 cut or cut it yourself at home for free? Absolutely no one is being forced to purchase these more expensive options in our current economy. So why does it happen?

  248. projectp says

    I would love to see the device that can measure your arbitrary values too. What is the unit of measurement, bullshit?
    How much money is a gallon of gas worth? you don’t know because it changes and money is a rubber band ruler.

  249. projectp says

    Chikoppi,

    There are several considerations that determine price, scarcity, quality of materials, marketing, durability.
    Everyone wants what they think is the best bang for the buck. We should make everything the best bang for the energy cost.

  250. Narf says

    We should make everything the best bang for the energy cost.

    How?!?!?!?!?

    I don’t see how your proposed system could possibly do anything of the sort, and until you can develop an actual plan … not “be sure that it can be done,” but have an actual plan, the whole thing is just a pipe dream, and we’ll continue to mock it.

  251. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    There are several considerations that determine price, scarcity, quality of materials, marketing, durability. Everyone wants what they think is the best bang for the buck. We should make everything the best bang for the energy

    What constitutes “the best bang for the buck” often has very little to do with a mathematical assessment of the physical/functional properties of an object or the energy expended in the creation of an object or service. In a world wherein only material needs mattered your premise might be worth considering. But we don’t live in that world.
    .
    People buy expensive suits, haircuts, cars, and houses as social signals. Rare and unique objects confer status for the owner that is wealthy enough to acquire them. That status, those social signals, have real value.
    .
    The famous opera singer might expend no more energy creating a performance than the tone-deaf street busker outside. She only performs once a year for an audience of 2000 people. Those people are willing to pay $750 per seat to watch her perform live. How would your system account for this phenomenon?

  252. projectp says

    What constitutes “the best bang for the buck” often has very little to do with a mathematical assessment of the physical/functional properties of an object or the energy expended in the creation of an object or service. In a world wherein only material needs mattered your premise might be worth considering. But we don’t live in that world.

    Only material needs need be considered is correct. Art doesn’t need to be sold for profit in a system where everyone has more than enough and there is no debt. Art can just be enjoyed in it’s free creation and consumption.

    People buy expensive suits, haircuts, cars, and houses as social signals. Rare and unique objects confer status for the owner that is wealthy enough to acquire them. That status, those social signals, have real value.

    since you are claiming that there is a real measurement of value, then tell me the units and can we get the same results when others take the same measurement? Is this based on science? or just scarcity etc… I think the latter would be the case.

  253. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    since you are claiming that there is a real measurement of value, then tell me the units and can we get the same results when others take the same measurement? Is this based on science? or just scarcity etc… I think the latter would be the case.

    There is no scarcity of $1,500 suits. At any time, someone who wants one can buy it. There is, however, a scarcity of people who can afford to regularly wear $1,500 suits. Thus, this display of wealth becomes a convenient signal for “in-group/out-group” recognition.
    .
    If you are arguing that social signaling is not a deeply-ingrained and competitive behavior within human society, one which has an intrinsic impact on economic choices, then I think you’ve strayed into denialism. If your system cannot account for this effect it is simply not viable.
    .
    I’m still interested to know how you would assign relative value in my earlier example of the performances of the opera singer and the street-busker. To remove the question of scarcity, assume the street-busker also performs only once per year.

  254. projectp says

    wow…. you have no idea what i am asking… sigh…..

    how is the value of the suit determined?

    since you are claiming that there is a real measurement of value, then tell me the units of value and can we get the same results when others take the same measurement? Is this based on science? or just scarcity etc… I think the latter would be the case.

  255. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    Only material needs need be considered is correct. Art doesn’t need to be sold for profit in a system where everyone has more than enough and there is no debt. Art can just be enjoyed in it’s free creation and consumption.

    Sorry, I almost missed this.

    A famous artist dies. After his death, a final painting is discovered and his estate decides to sell it. He worked on it in secret and no one knows how many hours he spent. Thousands of people want to own this work to enjoy it in their homes. What value is assigned to the work and how do you determine who among the interested parties is allowed to purchase it?

  256. projectp says

    i did answer, maybe you missed it.

    Art doesn’t need to be sold for profit in a system where everyone has more than enough and there is no debt. Art can just be enjoyed in it’s free creation and consumption.

  257. projectp says

    Chikoppi,

    This is hard for some people to conceive of i guess. But in the system we would move further and further away from the concept of, and burdens of OWNERSHIP. The real value of an item is in it’s use.

    This new way of living would be completely different from what has ever been done before.

    I gotta go to bed now and unfortunately I am having an argument with someone in my house that actually believes in ghost…. it never ends…. Ill check back on the blog tommorrow…

  258. Chikoppi says

    wow…. you have no idea what i am asking… sigh…..

    Don’t do that. I’ve treated you with respect and I expect the same in return.

    since you are claiming that there is a real measurement of value, then tell me the units of value and can we get the same results when others take the same measurement? Is this based on science? or just scarcity etc… I think the latter would be the case.

    Google “costly signaling theory.” It has been widely studied with ample research published in peer review, chiefly within the psychology, economics, and evolutionary biology disciplines.
    I am not aware of an established “unit of measurement” attached to the value of social signals, likely because it is a complex phenomena that varies subjectively among and between cultures (though “brand value” might be a colloquial analogy). As you’ll see for yourself in the published research, it is regarded as an instinctive and pervasive behavior.

  259. projectp says

    ok, last post before bed…
    couldn’t help looking when i heard the phone say i had an email.

    I didn’t say anything disrespectful IMO. I merely pointed out the fact that you did not understand what I was talking about and sighed. I have typed far too much in the blog. you must understand this is frustrating.

    Costly signaling theory would not meet the requirements of measuring an item’s value as far as science is concerned because there are no units of measurement. I.E kilograms, calories , BTU’s etc.
    Energy is perfect for that purpose. Money once again can not measure anything because it is a rubber band ruler.
    therefore science can not be applied to it.

  260. Monocle Smile says

    This is hard for some people to conceive of i guess. But in the system we would move further and further away from the concept of, and burdens of OWNERSHIP. The real value of an item is in it’s use.
    This new way of living would be completely different from what has ever been done before

    Your failure to understand human nature at any level is the root of the problem. I was hoping before that you weren’t this far off the deep end and that this wasn’t what you were pushing, but it seems I was right the first time.

    Please, tell me how to solve the materials problem I talked about in my last post. Go ahead. A fundamental failure of your system is that the energy cost to produce an item does not necessarily correlate to its quality, so please tell me how you fix that. I’ve worked on sensor windows before, and it quite literally takes the exact amount of energy to produce a shitty piece of glass as a good one.

  261. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    Art doesn’t need to be sold for profit in a system where everyone has more than enough and there is no debt. Art can just be enjoyed in it’s free creation and consumption.

    In your system, people earn “credit” by expending productive “energy,” am I right? Does the production of “art” earn credit? Is the credit earned the same for hours spent by a seasoned master and a completely ham-fisted novice?
    Also, you haven’t quite addressed the questions of subjective value and scarcity. If one-million people desperately want to attend a one-time-only performance of the opera singer, held in a historic theater that seats only 2000, how do you determine the value of the performance and who gets to attend?

  262. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    Costly signaling theory would not meet the requirements of measuring an item’s value as far as science is concerned because there are no units of measurement. I.E kilograms, calories , BTU’s etc.

    The fact that is difficult to measure doesn’t negate its influence or make it any less of a practical, substantive market force.
    I think the flaws I find in your theory arise from the underlying assumption that an economy is a “physics-oriented” phenomena, when it is in fact equally, if not predominantly, a psychological/sociological phenomena that arises from the evolution of our biology, society, and environment. Your theory sounds great, until we try add human beings into the equation. 😉

  263. LittleGramma says

    249
    You like to twist what people say. I said what I said with no hidden meanings.

    Against public education… Are you kidding me? I said your education is up to you….what you get from public education is up to you. And getting the information for what they don’t/cannot teach you is up to you. Public schooling is just another teat the system has handed out to make you think they are the only source for teaching or the sole location for the information you want or need. If you are out of school, you have figured this out by now, right?

    Public schools are actually a dinosaur. Except they make great babysitters from ages infancy to 17/19 depending on your birthday or if you will suffer through to high school graduation. Then if mom and dad are willing to pay your way you get to play for another 2-4 years.

    What I’ve stated time after time, is people need to be responsible for themselves…and apparently need to be reminded of that often. Period.

    Even pre-teens know HOW babies are made and no unemployed/homeless person (basically anyone who isn’t paying their own rent or mortgage) should be having sex if they can’t take responsibility for potential pregnancy prior to getting their jollies. Or take care of the situation if they do become pregnant and don’t want to keep the child….abortion or adoption.

    Welfare was started because the liberals decided to make it so and instead of being a temporary situation, every generation of welfare family after that has become more dependent than the previous.

    Instead of continuing to promote the welfare system, place faith in people and promote responsibility when the children are young….in the schools and to the current adults, etc. Then some headway could be made in reducing unwanted pregnancy. People would realize they truly do need to plan ahead. Girls wouldn’t be following in their mother’s footsteps of a new man for every new child.

    Grandparents might actually get to be grandparents instead of parents a second or third time around. (not my case)

    I am not religious nor do I believe in ghosts or supernatural magic garbage, although it’s entertaining to watch as is other fiction, mysteries, etc. Even zombie and alien and monster films can be entertaining if you add a little comedy… or not.

    I answered your question. If you can’t handle it, it’s not my problem. Every girl/woman/family who find them in the situation of unplanned, unwanted child, has to decide for themselves. And apparently they do, some will choose abortion and others will choose to complete the pregnancy and keep the child or adopt out.

    For me abortion was never an option and if I had to do it over again, would still not be an option.

    The only solution to the problem you have with any of my answers is time. With age you’ll finally get it.

  264. Monocle Smile says

    The only solution to the problem you have with any of my answers is time. With age you’ll finally get it

    You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. In fact, progress is largely made by having the oldest generation die the fuck off and by burying their prejudices and shortcomings. You’re no different. The only dinosaur here is you.

    Welfare was started because the liberals decided to make it so and instead of being a temporary situation, every generation of welfare family after that has become more dependent than the previous

    This is a tired, blatant lie perpetuated by Wall Street and their ilk. You might be old as fuck, but wisdom hasn’t come along with it.

  265. LittleGramma says

    279
    O meye….u so smart. Me so dum. Guut four u. U mak ma an pa sew prowd.
    ba bi

  266. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Maybe there are a few carefree heirs to fortunes out there, but if you happen to get your money through hard work, or because you own your own business, you may actually have less free time than the average person who can forget all about work after they punch out for the day. I’ve known a few people like this who’ve spent nearly every waking moment on the job. They do that because the business is their’s and they both take pride in what they’re building and feel responsibility for their employees. Maybe they did it so that their own families wouldn’t have to work as hard, but many immigrant families tend to push their children to work as hard as they do.

    You might wonder why anyone would choose to work that hard if they didn’t have to, but you might as well question why anyone would choose to climb a mountain rather than take the ski-lift to the top. Sometimes, working hard is about fulfilling that very human need to feel challenged and to do something by yourself, which is why I can’t see this grand plan working for everyone.

  267. kudlak says

    @Narf
    No, I’m not some crazed, pure-free-market, whatchamacallit libertarian, but I do feel that the capitalist system does fulfill a very basic human need to be challenged in our lives. The kind of system that projectp seems to be describing (it’s hard to tell because, like all utopias, he’s very vague on the details) appears to have as it’s end goal the elimination of most work through technology. Well, that’s what’s been happening since the industrial revolution, isn’t it? Technology has freed up all the farm, mining and factory kids to find work in tourism, services and other less menial industries.

    We do have more free time than our grandparents could ever have felt comfortable with at our age, and the trend seems to be progressing, but I have a problem with the implication that people will be forced not to work hard if they so choose. For many people, hard work and doing it yourself is what they consider “fun”, or at least fulfilling. Do you remember the Simpsons episode where Homer goes to work for the Bond-like villain Hank Scorpio? Remember Marge in her modern home with nothing to do but drink wine. That may be some people’s idea of Paradise, but not mine. I’d go crazy without things to do, the things I want to do, that is.

  268. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Yup, real lasting change never seems to be something you can impose on others, which is why I told PP that he was putting the cart before the horse in assuming that his system would change people into accepting it. That might happen if supporters of that system took over the government and made a purge, but that doesn’t sound very likely unless the movement manages to gain some religious-like fervor, which seems pretty unlikely. It was kinda popular in the 30s, but it seems to be down to flat-earth society numbers these days, which isn’t really surprising, is it?

  269. kudlak says

    @projectp
    So, under your system you’d be free to write music that you probably won’t be able to publish, enjoying whatever outdoors which has been deemed surplus to the needs of production, and working as much as you’re allowed to work. Sure, you can learn stuff, but what if you wanted to apply what you learned to something more substantial than a blog discussion? What if you learned how to build a wooden table, but the government doesn’t see any need for DIY projects when it already manufactures perfectly functional tables in its ultra-efficient way?

    Every resource and every use of those resources would be strictly controlled your system, right? Produce no crap, and all that. Well, forms of recreation usually consume or tie up resources, don’t they? So, what happens when the powers that be don’t see a practical use for certain types of recreation, hobbies or other pastimes? You won’t be free to do as you please then, now would you?

    By “purchasing power” you still mean some kind of income, right? Supposedly enough to “satisfy” everyone, but how is that possibly determined? Ten apples may satisfy most people, but some folks could get by with less while others will probably want more, even if they end up rotting before they can be eaten. Some people simply will not be satisfied with having the same as everyone else. That’s human nature, as it now stands, and even if there is no “money”, somebody will likely find a way to swindle others out of their share.

    You may think me rather pessimistic for saying that, but I consider it being a realist. Remember that before the Federation could come into being humanity had to face a eugenics war and it’s terrible aftermath plus first contact with an alien species before it could get it’s priorities straight. People have to change first, and then form a government that puts those new ideals into practice. The trend seems to be heading generally towards having less work and more leisure time anyway, but I can see a tipping point where people will find the sweet spot balancing the right amount of work to leisure before being forced to take time off work that they happen to enjoy or otherwise value. I seriously cannot see a future where people will be content to be treated like children by technocrats; given a set allowance, told how much and where they can work as well as what they can do with their time.

  270. kudlak says

    @projectp
    I’m not so sure that every artist would want to see their work mass-produced to the point where their hand in it disappears. Some art has it’s value in it’s uniqueness, or in the individual performance of it which is also unique each time. I’d rather be free to go to as many Rolling Stones concerts as I can, even if they keep singing the same songs, than be told that I’ll have to be satisfied with mp3s of their songs.

  271. projectp says

    oh kudlak,

    The limitations YOU are imposing on people just won’t exist. there would be no government control of your life at all. just like I can publish music for free now I would do it then. The smashing pumpkins did a double album called Machina II/The Friends & Enemies of Modern Music and released it for free on the internet. about corruption in the industry. (there is corruption in all of our industries because it is intrinsic to the profit system.

    Greed and Competition are not the result of immutable human temperament… greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being created and amplified… the direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive.

    Bernard Lietaer – Founder of the EU Currency system.

    Efficiency, sustainability and abundance are the enemies of profit, that will never change. Because it is built into the model.1% of the population runs 40% of the world’s wealth 34,000 children die every single day from poverty and preventable diseases and 50% of the world’s population lives on less than 2 dollars a day. It’s is clear this system is not working and will never work. But it is the biggest religion in the world and it’s fanatics are the most fundamental.

  272. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    “Three grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for.”
    Joseph Addison

    I can’t help but feel that PP’s system would eventually take these essentials away from people.

  273. projectp says

    Well, you are wrong. People would be free to explore those things fully without the interference of constantly being on the treadmill for profit and debt. Working at unnecessary jobs. Hope would be real, all we have in this system is a false hope.
    The proof is in its history.

  274. kudlak says

    @projectp
    No government control on people’s lives is the hallmark of libertarianism, isn’t it? What’s to stop people from carrying on as they do now if there is no government control?

    Not everything can be published on the internet for free. Some people will want to create things, actual physical things, that require resources. Say you want to make tables, nice wooden tables, by hand. You’re system isn’t likely to see that as an “efficient” use of your time and the available resources, right? It would certainly be able to provide tables to everyone that would “satisfy” them, so why should it allow you to create such “waste”?

    If everyone is guaranteed a good standard of living will there be any consequence for those not wanting to do even their tiny part? If a certain number of people are allowed to “slide” and basically live off the government teat won’t that create dissension? If people are given “credit” to buy things, isn’t it inevitable that a criminal element will find a way to cheat people out of their allowance? You can’t argue that having “sufficient” amounts to suit your needs will stop such behaviour when the wealthy continue to accumulate well past what anyone “needs.”

    Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s a noble dream. I just don’t see how it’s a very practical idea, that’s all. For your system to have a chance of working people would have to first change their very nature. They will have to lose all ambition and a great deal of pride in personal accomplishment. They would have to devalue competition and not desire to challenge themselves very much. If these things manage to be breed out of us as a species, aren’t we in danger of becoming little worker bees?

  275. LittleGramma says

    288
    “Well, you are wrong. People would be free to explore those things fully without the interference of constantly being on the treadmill for profit and debt. Working at unnecessary jobs. Hope would be real, all we have in this system is a false hope.”
    Until humans evolve to be perfectly constructed physically and mentally (EVERYONE is benevolent), and such that their bodies or minds can never be damaged except to have a natural expiration date, no one will ever be truly free to do as they wish, regardless of financial comfort.

    “The proof is in the history.”
    We have abundant history of the boundaries of imperfection of this planet and everything on it to prove it.

  276. kudlak says

    @projectp

    “People would be free to explore those things fully without the interference of constantly being on the treadmill for profit and debt. Working at unnecessary jobs.”

    But what if you don’t actually hate your work? Not everyone is a couch potato who sees having to do any work as an interference to their video gaming career. Some of us actually love what we get paid to do. What if we don’t want to be “liberated” by your system?

    Speaking of actual work I’m off to it for today. If you don’t start actually answering my concerns with real content, however, I may choose to stop conversing with you. I simply cannot bring myself to have faith in anything as unproven as this.

  277. projectp says

    You guys are confusing Human nature with Human Behavior. Our profit-driven behavior is no more natural than wearing clothing. We have always had the problems I mentioned because we have always had systems of scarcity. The system affects human behavior, but there is no human nature just behavior. You are not born with Bigotry, Greed, corruption and hatred.

  278. projectp says

    Oh and kudlak, i already mentioned before that there is nothing to stop you from doing anything you love doing. you wouldn’t have to worry about the barriers we have now getting in the way of that.

  279. LittleGramma says

    “You are not born with Bigotry, Greed, corruption and hatred.”
    If only that were true. But, people are born this way. Read just one article or book on the sociopath or the psychopath. Just two of the innumerable forms of imperfection.

    “…you wouldn’t have to worry about the barriers we have now getting in the way of that.”
    Again, imperfection is the barrier. Care for the young and the infirm (any age) will always have to come first.

  280. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    You guys are confusing Human nature with Human Behavior. Our profit-driven behavior is no more natural than wearing clothing. We have always had the problems I mentioned because we have always had systems of scarcity. The system affects human behavior, but there is no human nature just behavior. You are not born with Bigotry, Greed, corruption and hatred.

    Scarcity or greed isn’t the issue. Even if everything that could be manufactured were free and plentiful people would still find a way to compete economically and no system is immune to that effect. It is a genetic imperative to display superior fitness, as a potential mate and as a member of society. That isn’t merely human nature, its the nature of every sexually reproducing species on the planet (to my knowledge). The fact that a person can own something or do something that others can’t has actual value beyond mere physical or functional properties of the thing purchased because of human nature. A system that cannot account for economic value beyond the “energy consumption” of the thing produced is naive.

  281. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @projectp

    You are not born with Bigotry, Greed, corruption and hatred.

    lol

    @LittleGramma

    Against public education… Are you kidding me? I said your education is up to you….what you get from public education is up to you. And getting the information for what they don’t/cannot teach you is up to you. Public schooling is just another teat the system has handed out to make you think they are the only source for teaching or the sole location for the information you want or need. If you are out of school, you have figured this out by now, right?

    Public schools are actually a dinosaur. Except they make great babysitters from ages infancy to 17/19 depending on your birthday or if you will suffer through to high school graduation. Then if mom and dad are willing to pay your way you get to play for another 2-4 years.

    I say you’re arguing against public education. You deny it, and in the same breath you again argue against public education. What the fuck? Are you are a troll?

    I answered your question.

    My question regarding your religiosity and your belief in immaterial souls? I don’t think you did. If you did, I missed it, and could you please answer again and/or point me towards your previous answer?

  282. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Don’t we determine human nature by observing human behaviour?

    If enough people loved accumulating wealth then nothing would have changed and, if they did love it, they would find a way to accumulate wealth whether there is actual money or not. You seem to be imaging that you can pile every resource in the world together and trust that everyone will take just what they need, like putting all your Halloween candy out in a bowl on your step and imagining that every kid would dutifully take only a couple of pieces. Even if you kept checking on it and refilling it every time you saw it was empty, would you be naive enough to think that every kid just took their equal share?

    Maybe you have some idea of humanity from the most primitive of cultures, where the tribe sees to everyone’s needs and so on?

  283. projectp says

    The hoarding behavior is a result of living in a system that creates scarcity. You guys are stuck in the for-profit box, unable to break free, for now at least. Maybe in the future it will click. I suggest looking into it more and not just taking my word for it. Question things, don’t be so quick to assume what we have now is the only option. That is a very myopic view.

  284. projectp says

    Let me clarify, when I say, don’t just take my word. I mean ask others that know about it and look into the system for yourselves. I would never question one person on a subject so multifaceted.

  285. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Hoarding wealth is just a part of it. Many wealthy people actually spend a great potion of their wealth, thus their “needs” rise to meet the resources available to them. Within your system, which magically gives everyone all that they desire, everyone would have the opportunity to live as lavishly as they like, having as many playthings as they want. Wouldn’t that create a wave of consumerism far greater than what we currently have? What will happen to everything the cornucopia gives you once you tire of it? Let me guess, Star Trek replicators will be invented and recycling will be just as easy as reversing the procedure?

    Then you have to ask yourself whether this will actually be good for us. Presently, we live in a society where food is so readily available that most people have a problem not consuming more than they need to. Your system wouldn’t nanny us by making only healthy food available. Part of the “freedom to do as we like”, and who doesn’t enjoy a good meal? So, won’t we just end up becoming even fatter and less healthy? Again, I’m reminded of what humanity becomes in Wall.E. If that’s your idea of a better world I don’t want any part of it.

  286. projectp says

    ” which magically gives everyone all that they desire” wrong there is no magic. it is a fact that we have the resources.
    I have tried to communicate with you as best I could. If you would like more information seek it out for yourself.
    I am not going to continue answering the same questions repeatedly. And giving the same answers.
    All I can say is from the things you say I know you do not understand the system at all. Not even a little.

    At least you guys don’t believe in gods or ghost and I will take that as a positive.

    peace.

  287. LittleGramma says

    “You guys are stuck in the for-profit box….” “…look into the system for yourselves.” Pointless.

    The system is a fantasy theory created by naive people (perhaps clinically depressed due to nutritional deficiencies or a horrific childhood, etc.) who need to create fantasy to make sense of a world they cannot accept.

    For help in realistic thinking you might check out a book by Albert Ellis.

  288. kudlak says

    @projectp
    From what I’ve seen it’s not a “system” at all, but simply a concept of what a better society might look like. There are no practical steps outlined in how to get from here to there, and only vague fragments of details of how “there” would function. The whole thing hinges on the belief that people will take only want they need in a system of overabundance, but our present experience tells us that people with an access to overabundance tend to overindulge. This is not just human nature. How many people would end up with a fat pet if they just opened up a sack of food for them to eat as they like?

  289. kudlak says

    @projectp
    But you haven’t answered my questions. That’s the point!!! All you do is give vague assurances that it will all work.

  290. LittleGramma says

    Your comprehension of the written word prevents you from understanding anything I write, so it’s pointless to continue with you. When you get frustrated you just swear and throw baseless insults.
    So let me sling an insult.
    Did you get it?

  291. Narf says

    @306 – LittleGramma
    I don’t think the comprehension issue is on our side.

    Your base problem on this issue is that your decisions about what you value are a bit screwed up. What’s so special about the fertilization of an egg? I mean … I expect that sort of thing out of a theist, since they have extra baggage about souls. Once God put the soul into that single cell, it was a person … or something similarly stupid. What’s your excuse?

    People are brains. Brains are people. You accept that, at least, right?

    You seem to be leaving important bits behind, when you make your wild statements. You went onto some weird thing about keeping brain-dead patients alive, at great cost, for example. Why the hell would we do that? Once a person is brain-dead, they’re dead.

    Same thing with your in potentia argument. I don’t care about what could be, if no one messed around with something. I care about what is. Making in potentia arguments is insane, since the same argument on the same subject would call an ovulating woman a murder, if she resisted her rapist. It serves just as well for an argument against using birth control. You need to work on thinking about things in a more consistent manner.

    I’ll leave aside your bizarre statement that bonobos murdering their thinking, breathing babies are morally superior to us aborting an unthinking fetus. Do you at least see how immoral that is, after you said it?

  292. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @LittleGramma
    Ok. As long as we agree that 1- I’m honestly trying to understand your position, and 2- you are being purposefully evasive about what you actually believe.

  293. Narf says

    @LittleGramma, again
    Oh, and your sex-negative attitudes are kind of off-putting. It isn’t just that your thought processes are off … although they are. Additionally, your premises are utterly fucked.

    Yes, almost every single teenager out there realizes that babies come from sex. There are probably a few home-schoolers who don’t learn that particular lesson until their parents tell them about the birds and the bees, after their child is married, but almost everyone gets that memo.

    Why would you even bring that up? That’s not the freaking point of sex education. Yes, you need to go over that, so that all of the children know the basics, but that’s just the starting point. It’s amazing how much misinformation there is out there, and preteens will pass around all sorts of stupidity as if it’s fact.

    Teenagers are a bunch of little horn-balls. Most of them are going to have sex, and they aren’t far-thinking enough to say that they aren’t going to have sex when their hormones are screaming at them to do so, and their significant other is applying pressure on top of the hormones. The point of sex education is to make sure that their life isn’t impaired by having a child or STDs, before they’re ready to deal with the situation. Our education system is seriously failing, on that point.

    It’s so hard to talk to you about anything, because almost everything you’re saying about this subject is wrong on almost every level. Your grasp of what sex education is like in this country, on average, is horribly wrong. You focus on the wrong part of these issues. Often, one part of your argument is not logically connected to the next part. It’s hard to tell where to even begin, with most of what you’ve said about abortion/sex-education.

  294. Narf says

    @kudlak – 281-283

    Maybe there are a few carefree heirs to fortunes out there, but if you happen to get your money through hard work …

    I wasn’t even thinking of trust-fund babies. I was talking about the workaholic executives. Most of them work like that because they enjoy it. If they didn’t, they would punch out of the workforce after they made their first $10 million or so. Having that power and influence is just another benefit, providing them with a major ego-hardon and making them less likely to want to clock out and go home. It’s often a perk, not a burden.

    No, I’m not some crazed, pure-free-market, whatchamacallit libertarian, but I do feel that the capitalist system does fulfill a very basic human need to be challenged in our lives.

    So, you’re more or less in favor of a hybrid system, as I am? We need governmental controls to keep companies from abusing people, the environment, destroying our economy in exchange for their own short-term gain, etc?

    Yup, real lasting change never seems to be something you can impose on others, which is why I told PP that he was putting the cart before the horse in assuming that his system would change people into accepting it. That might happen if supporters of that system took over the government and made a purge, but that doesn’t sound very likely unless the movement manages to gain some religious-like fervor, which seems pretty unlikely. It was kinda popular in the 30s, but it seems to be down to flat-earth society numbers these days, which isn’t really surprising, is it?

    That’s what I was talking about, way back when. Yes, a complete revolution could do it, but otherwise, you have no path to implementation. All of PP’s conjecture is freaking pointless, since it could never become a reality.

    Even in the case of a violent revolution that implemented such a system, I would expect an almost complete backslide, within a few generations. Governments and social systems are not static.

    And that’s just the start of his issues. As you said a little bit after these comments I’m responding to, he doesn’t actually have anything to work with, beyond a few pipe dreams. He can assert that something can be done, but the only thing that he has presented which has a coherent system was deeply flawed, and he distanced himself from it almost completely, once we started criticizing it.

  295. LittleGramma says

    “Yes, almost every single teenager out there realizes that babies come from sex.” Your words.

    I’ll repeat that in bold BABIES COME FROM SEX. If left alone to mature in the internal environment they were placed to grow (the only place they can grow) into a breathing person (there is no magic to blink people into existence…no stork to deliver)….a male and female decided sex was the option for the day have literally MADE THE COMMITMENT THAT A PERSON COULD BE MADE from this union. Period. Babies comes from sex.

    To be clear, those of you who insist that a sperm and egg that meet and instantly start making that baby are only a clump of cells. Cells to be what? A baby. You say there is no brain. Really? How do you know this? Have you inspected this microscopic stage of the baby to see the cells that constitute what will eventually be the brain you can recognize?

    As I’ve said before, what is stopping you from killing a baby at any stage of development before it can breathe the air you and I breathe? What is stopping you from killing any life that is inconvenient for you at any stage of development? Do I look like I did when I was a toddler? Do you? Do you look like you did at 16? Will you look the same at age 74?

    I didn’t say anything about brain dead people. I was referring to people some may consider inconvenient (don’t want the responsibility) is a person who requires all their needs met by someone else. Infant, injury, physical disease, etc. Whatever prevents them from being independent.

    Infants, children require adults to provide food, clothing and shelter and care in general. Same for someone who is paralyzed or partially paralyzed. Someone who is mentally deficient, but the body continues to mature; or in rare cases doesn’t and actually stays the size of an infant with the mentality of less than a normal newborn. An aged person or injured person who requires others to do everything, including feeding to elimination assistance. Multiple sclerosis to the final conclusion before death is inability to speak above a whisper and being quadraplegic = Mom.

    Apparently, you all consider the mass of cells that you know constitute the early stages of a human to not be human?
    How do you decide this? Science has concluded that mass of cells is a human, not a rabbit or a calf, nor dog or cat. And at the stage you have decided it is only a clump of brainless cells; it factually is busy BEING a human in it’s first stages.

    Instead of taking responsibility (RESPONSIBILITY) before having sex, you all have decided that there are no consequences to having sex at your whim. But then you run up against a sperm and egg joining. Oh, dear. Now what? This cannot be allowed to continue. Because this is a person that in 9 months would be given a PERSONal name….and will resemble the mother and father.

    So, you go ahead believing for convenience/denial of responsibility it isn’t human. Because YOU KNOW the majority of abortions are because people have been irresponsible twits and created a human. But an abortion stops it’s growth/kills it.

    And do realize, abortions are invasive to the mother. Results vary and not a few are without negative consequence.

  296. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To be clear, those of you who insist that a sperm and egg that meet and instantly start making that baby are only a clump of cells. Cells to be what? A baby. You say there is no brain. Really? How do you know this? Have you inspected this microscopic stage of the baby to see the cells that constitute what will eventually be the brain you can recognize?

    Not personally, but many of trustworthy scientists have reported that they have done so, and they discovered no neurons, let alone a brain, in the early stages of development.

    As I’ve said before, what is stopping you from killing a baby at any stage of development before it can breathe the air you and I breathe? What is stopping you from killing any life that is inconvenient for you at any stage of development? Do I look like I did when I was a toddler? Do you? Do you look like you did at 16? Will you look the same at age 74?

    First question – does it have a mind, e.g. does it have a brain? Second question – is it being parasitic on another member of society with that person’s consent?

    Apparently, you all consider the mass of cells that you know constitute the early stages of a human to not be human?

    No. A better phrasing is “not a person”. No brain, no mind, no person.

    And do realize, abortions are invasive to the mother. Results vary and not a few are without negative consequence.

    Propaganda and lies. Abortions are stupidly safe.

  297. LittleGramma says

    “Same thing with your in potentia argument. I don’t care about what could be, if no one messed around with something.”

    Apparently, you do care about in potentia. Because if you don’t mess with it, it will be something. The human you need to get rid of as early as possible while YOU still consider it a cat or dog, or whatever you think it could be.

    “Making in potentia arguments is insane, since the same argument on the same subject would call an ovulating woman a murder, if she resisted her rapist. It serves just as well for an argument against using birth control. You need to work on thinking about things in a more consistent manner.”

    Insanity is your game, not mine. Egg is egg. Sperm is sperm. Not until the sperm enters the egg is it a human in potentia/or factually first stages of development. Not the same argument. Silly boy.

    You simply need to think above your belt.

    You don’t even understand how to use the word immoral. Or is that EL or MS?

    Sex education in the US. Who the hell cares what the schools teach or don’t teach. Where are the parents? Education on any survival topic begins at home. Beyond school boundaries it’s up to families and individuals to learn what they need to know. Stop all this READY TO LEARN promotion. People are already learning from birth and apparently need to realize they are their own best teachers or advocates for learning anything. Again, libraries, the internet, the neighbor, a relative, etc.

    Depending on the government or believing the government funded anything is your sole source of anything, especially personal support of you or a family you create is childish.

    You three seem to be stuck on atheism to a fanatic level. Perhaps it is your defining identity instead of simply being a personal freedom decision to not participate in sky gods or other magic. To attempt to explain away an understanding of scientific fact (fertilized egg is a human being) to be religious leaning is inconsistent thinking. Simply wrong.

  298. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Yup, it’s all pretty pointless without a genuine plan on how to make it happen. The obvious comparison is of a Trekkie fanboy who goes beyond the usual cosplay to argue that we CAN make the Federation a reality, complete with working warp engines and replicators. LL can insist all he wants that greed will simply disappear under his system, but that’s like a Christian insisting that people will still have free will in a Heaven where everyone will nonetheless all choose to worship God 24/7/365/infinity. Both sound like the classic fairytale ending of living happily ever after, don’t they?

  299. projectp says

    I had to comment just because you are only proving my last post correct. You have ZERO understanding of what has been outlined. The system is not designed to eliminate greed, greed would be irrelevant because of the abundance. You can not see that you are holding on to a system that kills/destroys/waste as in intrinsic part of its operation.

    What is proposed is the use of science to determine what the best plan is.(and there are a lot of details that you need to look at for YOURSELF, THEY ARE DONE. If there is any part of the plan that science shows can be improved it will be dropped without a second thought and replaced with what works best. UNLIKE YOUR SYSTEM The money system is like religion in every way. Frozen with dogmas like the ones you spit out of your cemented minds. I.E everyone’s greedy, you can’t do x because of human nature. All irrelevant because problems can be solved with technical solutions regardless of your dogma. Science has no dogma and the physical operation controlling the flow of goods does not need it either.

    You guys sit around patting yourselves on your backs for nothing at all, you haven’t looked into this system or any other like it with any serious amount of study. How do I know? because you make ridiculous comparisons of StarTrek and I’ve seen a lot of peer reviewed papers that go against just about every ignorant word you have uttered about human psychology. Then you ask me to hold your hand and show you because you are too LAZY to do it yourselves.

    You are arm chair critics of the worst kind and very closed minded, Narf has a serious problem with a need for validation, every ten post or so he will ask Martin from the show for some validation. it’s pitiful. Don’t even get me started on littlgrandma Cemented mind is far too conservative that one is completely petrified.

  300. projectp says

    unchecking: “Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.” because I am sick of the wilful ignorance.

  301. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Insanity is your game, not mine. Egg is egg. Sperm is sperm. Not until the sperm enters the egg is it a human in potentia/or factually first stages of development.

    Says who? Why should I believe you?

  302. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @projectp
    And again, lol. Actually laughed out loud during work. Thanks sir.

  303. Narf says

    @312 – EnlightenmentLiberal

    And do realize, abortions are invasive to the mother. Results vary and not a few are without negative consequence.

    Propaganda and lies. Abortions are stupidly safe.

    More specifically, abortions are safer than carrying a baby to term and giving birth to it, by several orders of magnitude.

    Everything you say is so utterly wrong, Gramma. I don’t think I can deal with your crap anymore. It’s not worth the time. When every piece of your argument is wrong, and then those pieces aren’t even assembled into a rational chain of thought, I think you’re beyond my ability to straighten out.

  304. Narf says

    @319 – EL
    Awwwwwww, and here I was hoping for another 10 or 15 hours of videos from him, of people making wildly unsupported assertions about subjects they don’t understand.

  305. kudlak says

    @projectp
    References to science fiction and communism happen to be the closest analogies to your system available. In order to eliminate the human factor in your system’s decision-making process, pure logic will have to be employed, right? No lobbying by special interest groups, or political pressure will be able to influence what the determined “best” course of action will be, correct? Since humans are anything but completely logical, some kind of computer intelligence will be needed to make decisions on what’s best for us … and you cannot foresee any potential problems with that? Seriously?

    Anyway, I’m actually growing tired of hearing you prophetize our doom and lament our not taking your wisdom on blind faith. It was interesting that you come here claiming to have a scientifically proven system to replace what we already have when the reality is that all you have is a dream based on little more than a hypothesis. Taking individuals and raising their standard of living within our present system, where there are still poorer people and an opportunity to better oneself even further, isn’t indicative of how individuals would feel generations into a system where everyone has basically the same and there is no hope of ever improving one’s standard of living significantly. Come back when you have a real world example of a complete, comparatively-sized society run by your system, with studies showing that those people are actually happier, and that nobody actually wants more than what the system provides.

  306. Narf says

    @322 – kudlack

    It was interesting that you come here claiming to have a scientifically proven system to replace what we already have when the reality is that all you have is a dream based on little more than a hypothesis.

    No, what he actually has is faith that science will develop the perfect, ideal system upon which we should base our society. Oh, and he’s here to tell us what that system will be, because he knows that he knows that he knows.

    And he had the balls to compare us to religious people, because we don’t blindly swallow his unsupported, unsubstantiated, un-detailed pipe-dreams. Someone doesn’t understand what skepticism means.

  307. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Actually, what I got from his rantings was that the system was already well thought out in the sites he listed and that the role of science was to be the cold, logical, incorruptible intelligence behind governance. It would have to be a hard AI type of intelligence, however, because all other computer systems are programmed by actual people, and their values would ruin the system.

    The other thing to consider is that any hard AI intelligence would basically be as alien to us as actual space aliens, or a god. Essentially, this intelligence would be acting as a powerful, parent-like determiner of what’s best for us, so calling it a real, man-made god probably wouldn’t be too far off the mark. If PP’s arguing for a utopia controlled by a god-like intelligence why should he be surprised when he gets treated like a theist arguing for the existence of Heaven?

    Finally, there’s probably a good reason why there are hundreds of examples from science fiction which illustrate the folly of trusting computers to run our lives, right?

  308. Narf says

    Actually, what I got from his rantings was that the system was already well thought out in the sites he listed and that the role of science was to be the cold, logical, incorruptible intelligence behind governance.

    Yeah, but then when we examined the source of the system, he immediately distanced himself from it, and I’m sure he would have done the same again, if we had actually watched that video he linked.

    It would have to be a hard AI type of intelligence, however, because all other computer systems are programmed by actual people, and their values would ruin the system.

    Hell, AI doesn’t get around the GIGO law. The AI wouldn’t be allowed to grow organically, but would be steered by programmers.

    If PP’s arguing for a utopia controlled by a god-like intelligence why should he be surprised when he gets treated like a theist arguing for the existence of Heaven?

    Heh heh heh heh heh. I didn’t even think of that aspect of the comparison. Nice one.

  309. LittleGramma says

    Dear Narf,
    Thank you for the lovely note which I’ve included below for reference.
    I wish you also a fond farewell and that you have a great life.
    All the Best,
    Little Gramma

    “Dear Gramma:
    We both believe that everything the other says is so utterly wrong. I say we don’t make anyone deal with our crap anymore. It’s not worth anyone’s time. When every piece of our arguments are misconstrued, and it is difficult to see what the other sees as a rational chain of thought, I think we are beyond the others’ ability to straighten out.
    So, I’ll bid you a fond farewell and wish for a great life.
    All the best,
    Narf”

  310. StonedRanger says

    I know Im not the smartest person on here, and after reading all this blarg I am happy to report that apparently Im not the stupidest person on here either. What does all this krepla from projectp have to do with atheism, or the show? Did I somehow miss that in 325 posts? Or was the purpose of all that just to come here, tell us to read his garbage, then insult our intelligence over and over and over? Why do people do that?

  311. projectp says

    Well “sToNeDranger” it began at 47 when I complemented Martin for addressing Russel on slavery. But as you admitted you haven’t read much and obviously missed a lot. Then to come in here, at the end when Little grandma and Narf gave us such a sanguine ending you feel the need to ruin it and start calling people stupid. Way to raise the bar….

  312. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    And he had the balls to compare us to religious people, because we don’t blindly swallow his unsupported, unsubstantiated, un-detailed pipe-dreams

    I dare say he shouldn’t even qualify as having a pipe-dream. That implies he has a particular specifiable dream. He doesn’t even have that. All he has is fluster.

    It would have to be a hard AI type of intelligence, however, because all other computer systems are programmed by actual people, and their values would ruin the system.

    I know projectp is resembling a straw vulcan, but please don’t also do a straw vulcan. Logic and emotion are not contradictory. They can coexist quite nicely.

  313. projectp says

    Your arguments are a joke EL, these comparisons to StarTrek only show that you guys can only relate to things that you know. Fantasy stories…. And marxism, you don ‘t even understand that the heart of the Marxist system was based on the idea of human production. And that the RBE operates by distributing the abundance provided by our technologies, not human production. In fact, Human production is eliminated as the RBE is streamlined by better technology. It is the opposite!

    Failure after failure to understand the concept. are you guys teenagers? Or do you just watch a lot of TV?
    StarTrek, Stargate etc… lol what a joke.
    You don’t even understand the concept, therefore you can NOT call it anything, especially a pipedream.

  314. projectp says

    Another thing, it is just flat out crazy to think that science can achieve all of our achievements in medical, transportation, agriculture, Cells that might cure diabetes (human embryonic stem (ES) cells), Space travel and exploration, Vaccines, Computers, telecommunications…. i could go on and on for a very long time… But you guys are so genius you just happen to know that the method that brought all of this advancement just could not possibly design a better system of distribution.

    INSANE….

  315. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    You don’t even understand the concept, therefore you can NOT call it anything, especially a pipedream.

    What I and others have been pointing out is that the “concept” relies on an extremely myopic understanding of “science.” It isn’t enough to apply a single field, physics, to something so diverse, complex, and pervasive as all human economic interaction.
    Psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology are also sciences. The concept you put forth proposes to redefine personal motivations and societal norms while failing entirely to address or even acknowledge the influence or impact of these fundamental disciplines.
    Human beings compete for dominance and express individuality through displays of fitness, status, and influence. The incentives of the current economic system are a symptom not a cause of inate human behavior. The market doesn’t price things according to what they cost to make. The market prices things according to what people are willing to pay. Until you can demonstrate the ability overturn both evolutionary imperatives and the profit motive you really don’t have a viable proposition.

  316. projectp says

    You don’t get it either… where is your review of the system proposed, there is NOT one because every one of you have failed miserably to understand it. I have shown every time how off the mark your are. You can not critic something you do not understand fully. There are no evolutionary imperatives in the market. it is a man made Ponzi scheme. it is not natural.

    another fail…”Human beings compete for dominance and express individuality through displays of fitness, status, and influence. ”

    Greed and Competition are not the result of immutable human temperament… greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being created and amplified… the direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive.
    Bernard Lietaer – Founder of the EU Currency system.

    This is a quote from someone who knows much more about the monetary system than you. Yes it is an argument from authority. But it is a legitimate authority. someone who understands it , inside and out. IT IS BUILT INTO OUR SYSTEM.
    So we behave accordingly. why is that so hard for you to understand?

    AGAIN it is just flat out crazy to think that science can achieve what it has, but then can not be used to design a better system of distribution.

    Science CAN be used to do MUCH better than what we have. If we don’t do it our planet will not make it. We will destroy it trying to make a profit.

  317. Monocle Smile says

    where is your review of the system proposed, there is NOT one

    Where is your review of the massive, wet fart I just unleashed?
    EL reviewed the document. You then blustered and attempted to distance yourself from said document and didn’t fucking propose anything else.

    Lietar was wrong. Or at least made a gross oversimplification. Greed and competition are quite different.

    AGAIN it is just flat out crazy to think that science can achieve what it has, but then can not be used to design a better system of distribution

    No one said otherwise. But your “system” is half-assed magic. Science doesn’t deal in half-assed magic. You very obviously don’t understand the tragedy of the commons.

  318. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    There are no evolutionary imperatives in the market.

    I don’t think you understand what this means. Every decision human beings make is a result of of our evolutionary heritage. This includes how we evaluate threats and opportunities on a daily basis. The relative value we assign to goods and services, whether purchased via a monetary system or through simple barter, is a direct expression of evolutionary pressures in action.
    .

    Greed and Competition are not the result of immutable human temperament… Bernard Lietaer – Founder of the EU Currency system.

    A) A civil engineer. If you’re looking for an authority on human evolution to quote you might try Dawkins (i.e., “The Selfish Gene”) or at least someone accomplished in the field.
    B) Isn’t this one of the architects of the very system you so roundly disdain and condemn? Seems an odd choice to quote, as you must certainly consider his intellect suspect.
    .
    Lastly, stop accusing people of “not understanding” (I assure you, there is nothing wrong with the reading comprehension or abstract reasoning skills of myself or others here). Instead, why don’t you consider the critiques others have offered and go back to see if you can amend the proposition to better address some of these criticisms. You claim to be a proponent of the scientific method. Why don’t you seek out some peer review and actually subject yourself to qualified scrutiny? Until such a time as you do, I’m afraid the general consensus will remain that your proposal is unrealistic.

  319. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    About “not understanding”. I’m not a mindreader. Again, reason can only act on specific articulated ideas. For indistinct ideas, reason cannot act, and understanding cannot happen. I can only understand specific proposals that have been brought forth, not mere fluster. The only time that I was presented with a concrete plan, I ripped it to shreds all the way back in post 84, and thereafter projectp immediately disowned it. This is an extreme case of bad thinking, or trolling. Not sure which. I’m still leaning towards bad thinking. To projectp, you are still welcome to describe something resembling a proposal, but until then all I hear you saying is “Let’s put angels in charge. Wouldn’t it be great?”

    PS: You’re fucking ignorant if you really think that greed is entirely the result of modern economics. Like, beyond the pale ignorant. This is just a straw vulcan, also see here. A straw vulcan is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to logical, rational, and emotional. Ex: Why do you get out of bed in the morning? Because you want something. That’s an emotion. Action is impossible without emotion. What do we usually call the class of emotions which is the desire to obtain something for one’s own benefit? Greed. Practically no one is truly selfless and has concern only for others. I’m not. You’re not. My neighbor is not. We all have our own desires for our personal satisfaction. This is a blindingly obvious consequence of our evolutionary ancestry.

  320. Narf says

    I thought PP was finally going to leave us alone? And how many comments back did he promise to stop bothering/responding to me?

  321. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Even if it was originally programmed, a hard AI would be capable of independent thinking.

    One more thing to consider. Unless it manages to conquer the entire globe, a technocratic USA would still need a military for defence, including nuclear weapons, right? Cyberdyne Systems anyone?

  322. Narf says

    It’s still mechanistic, though, as we are. No matter how independently it can think, it’s initial configuration and architecture will heavily influence the directions that its thinking will lead it.

  323. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Remember that it will supposedly be in charge of all production, so it follows that it would intelligently design it’s updated hardware in ways that would eliminate any imperfections of human design. Think more like the cycons of the Battlestar Galactica reboot for that aspect.

  324. Narf says

    … or reinforce the existing imperfections that were programmed into them. Once you start getting into A.I., the hard definitions and rules start to go all wonky.

  325. StonedRanger says

    @PP 328
    To start with, I did not admit that I don’t read much. If I missed anything its the point to your entire screed. So I get that you related your first post to the show by commenting on how martin complimented Russell. I get that. Its the rest of your stuff that has me confused. You are the one who implied that we (the users of this blog) are too stupid to understand what you are saying without at least nine months of studying your proposal. And you have continued in that vein even unto post 328-329. You spelled my name in a way to put me down and flat out lied about what I said.
    Im still not sure what the rest of your posts have to do with atheism, and other than you telling people over and over that they are too stupid to understand, you pretty much ignore what people say then you flounce. Then you come back and continue to tell people they are too stupid to understand. So don’t throw stones in a glass house when everyone can go back and see just what you said. You keep talking like you have won Im not sure what, but you certainly haven’t won anything on this blog other than to show how disingenuous and dishonest you are. Don’t care about others comments in the context of what Im saying. That’s just another way you try to direct the conversation by derailing it to what you want it to say. Pffft. I am moving on because you have nothing more to offer than any lame theist.

  326. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Maybe this analogy will help: You can create children and teach them your values all you want, but eventually they will start thinking for themselves and what tends to happen is that their goals and values drift away from their parents, right? A hard AI would be like such a child, it may remember what its original programming was, but it won’t necessarily follow it once it achieves independent thought.

  327. projectp says

    StONeDrAnGeR, go smoke some more, you might as well…. I said it already, cemented minds.
    You all attack positions i don’t even have. And still use idiotic referents like Battlestar Galactica.

    1. My position was NEVER that Technocracy was a plan to use. I mentioned that in the beginning as a primer.
    2. I stated the plan had been advanced by other people and that you needed to look into it for yourselves.

    You are all LAZY and want someone to hold your hand. The flaws of our current system are glaringly obvious.
    But brainwashed by the RELIGION of money you can not escape. Once again, cemented minds.

    StOnEdRaNgEr, You are a hypocrite. don’t insult “our” intelligence and then you insult mine. it’s a two-way street and I refuse to play by your unfair rules.

    I was not going to post anything else until you came in with your asinine comments.
    Now the rest of the crew adds more of the same crap they have been spewing from the start.

    Once day all of you will realize science is the best method to solve the technical problems of distribution.
    not some archaic method of debt slavery.

  328. projectp says

    from http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1

    More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.Source 2

    The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.Source

    These are 2005 figures and have gotten WORSE. There is no profit in sustainability, efficiency, or helping the poor.
    The system feeds of those things at the expense of life.

  329. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    debt slavery.

    Modern US currency is not debt. Modern fiat currency is not an I.O.U. It hasn’t been that way for the US dollar for at least 30 years, and arguably much longer than that.

    You might be right if you’re referring to wage slavery, but I doubt it, and there are ways to handle wage slavery that do not require eliminating money.

    PS: Your energy credits are still money. They still derive their value from the consensus of the people, and if the government falls, then they become worthless, and thus they are fiat currency.

    PPS: Remind me to stop engaging with this guy. He’s a complete tool.

  330. kudlak says

    @projectp
    Your criticism of the present system is that it’s not natural, right? Yet, you also say that there was never a point in human history where scarcity was not driving the economic system, which would imply that we never had a “natural” system. So, if we never had a natural system, that would also make your system a man-made one as well, especially since it hinges upon human technology to make it a reality. That’s why criticizing our present system for being man-made just doesn’t make for a good argument.

  331. kudlak says

    @@projectp
    In your comment on post # 58, you stated that the Venus Project and Technocracy were “Two great science-based systems that avoid all the pitfalls of our belief based system now.” but now you’re saying that your position was never that Technocracy was a plan to use. So, what the hell have you been defending all this time, some future plan that people will someday devise?

  332. projectp says

    EL you are a fool, and prove it by this statement.

    “PS: Your energy credits are still money. They still derive their value from the consensus of the people, and if the government falls, then they become worthless, and thus they are fiat currency.”

    the energy credit derived value from a measure of energy required to produce the good. You need help.

    I have made that point over and over, and you still don’t get it? there is no other conclusion I can come to than you being foolish.

    Kudlak i said over and over they were starting points and ideas. Really bringing them up as ideas that even in the state they were in are better than what we have now.

  333. projectp says

    Also, the credits are not transferable and they expire. But none the less that system has been improved upon by the Resource based economy. See science works by dropping things that are obsolete and moving forward unlike the system we have now. That is based on debt. Money is created by the Private banking cartel called the fed and loaned into existence with interest. That is debt.

  334. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    the energy credit derived value from a measure of energy required to produce the good. You need help.

    .
    An “energy credit” is still an intangible commodity. It can’t be eaten. It can’t be used to build a structure. The use of such things as “money” in trade depend on the “full faith and credit” of the issuer. They only retain value if backed by fiat. I think that’s what EL was expressing (sorry if I put words in your mouth!).
    .
    More importantly, “a measure of energy to produce the good” is, believe it or not, an ARBITRARY means of assessing value. A flat-screen TV and a life-saving brain operation might require the same amount of energy to produce. That doesn’t mean they have the same value to the individual who needs or wants them. Nor does it imply that the individuals who produce them should be compensated equally.
    .
    Here’s a simpler analogy. Two shirts. Shirt A requires 100c to produce. Shirt B 500c. One of them makes you look fasionable and slim, much likelier to get laid or at least get to a second date. The other makes you look like a Luddite potato. Which is worth more? Who determines the value? The purchaser, the producer, or a government agency? If the producer receives the same amount of credit regardless of the shirt manufactured, what is the incentive to produce the shirt that more desired but more costly to produce?

  335. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Chikoppi

    An “energy credit” is still an intangible commodity. It can’t be eaten. It can’t be used to build a structure. The use of such things as “money” in trade depend on the “full faith and credit” of the issuer. They only retain value if backed by fiat. I think that’s what EL was expressing (sorry if I put words in your mouth!).

    Yep. You got it.

    @projectp
    And again, there are several real world examples with limits on how you can trade and spend fiat currency, but it’s still fiat currency. Similarly, there are plenty of real world examples of devaluing or changing money, but it’s still fiat currency. It takes just as much faith to use an energy credit as it does to use a US dollar. Both are worthless tomorrow if the government collapses. Both are fiat currency. Again, I admit that yours is a very particular and unique fiat currency, but it’s still fiat currency.

  336. projectp says

    No it isn’t even close. Currency can be traded. and hoarded. But most importantly you glossed over.

    But none the less that system has been improved upon by the Resource based economy. See science works by dropping things that are obsolete and moving forward unlike the system we have now.

  337. Narf says

    @345 – kudlak

    Maybe this analogy will help: You can create children and teach them your values all you want, but eventually they will start thinking for themselves and what tends to happen is that their goals and values drift away from their parents, right?

    By which point you’ve already had a profound impact upon the way they think and have partially molded the way they’re going to think, even if that molding didn’t drive them in the direction that you were trying to.  Goals and values may shift, but the fingerprint left from their parents’ molding tends to stay.  I don’t see why A.I. would be any different.

    Essentially, my point is that I don’t see how you could ever end up with a purely logical A.I.  You’re always going to have architectural effects based upon how the creators built the foundation of the thinking machine, combined with effects of the initial inputs they gave it.

    Allowing the A.I. to create another A.I. won’t solve the problem.  It’ll just make the second A.I. subject to the initial influences of the first A.I.  I don’t see how we could escape this infinite progression.

  338. projectp says

    Narf,
    I see your skepticism yet do not agree with your pretenses of A.I.

    The system we have now is doomed, and it is working against us.
    At this point, I must ask you.

    Do you not agree that the scientific method can develop a better system to distribute the abundance our technology can achieve?

    Because that is really what it comes down to. I believe that the scientific method has worked so well in the past and that it is the best candidate for designing our system into something sustainable. It has never been tried.

  339. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Do you not agree that the scientific method can develop a better system to distribute the abundance our technology can achieve?

    Translation: Can the scientific method manufacture angels to put in charge of our government and society? I do not agree to this assertion. If particular evidence concerning the nature of these angels was brought forward, and evidence on a particular method of construction and maintenance of the angels, then I might agree. However, I’m not going to agree to an underspecified, unevidenced assertion. That would be contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry and skepticism.

    Don’t be like a theist. Don’t think my lack of agreement means I hold to the position that science cannot do this thing. Rather, I am currently agnostic, somewhere in the position of “I do not know”. I’m a little more hard agnostic in that I don’t think you know either based on the conversations we’ve had thus far.

  340. Narf says

    Do you not agree that the scientific method can develop a better system to distribute the abundance our technology can achieve?

    Sure. It can also be used to create catastrophic nightmares, when people who think they understand a field of study actually have no freaking clue what they’re talking about. You can also grossly misapply things that you do actually know. A socio-economic system based upon the findings of physics and chemistry isn’t any more likely to be successful than one that someone could pull (and apparently has pulled) straight out of their ass.

    It would help if at some point along the way here you demonstrated that you actually understand what the scientific method is. You give it lip service, but you don’t seem to actually understand its application. Science requires testing and repetition. Until you have those two components, you’re not doing science. At best, you just have a wild-ass, speculative hypothesis.

  341. kudlak says

    @projectp
    But how can you argue that some unproven and untested ideas for a system would necessarily be better than any system that is actually in place? Things generally sound a whole lot better in theory than in practice. Do you think that Marx would have been proud of Stalin’s USSR? I think you are placing way too much faith in the people of the future all choosing to act altruistically.

  342. kudlak says

    @Narf
    How many children from strict fundamentalist families go on to become atheists? Is everyone who is descended from a slave owner doomed to always be racist? Does every current computer system still have programming that was originally was punched out on a set of cards?

  343. Narf says

    The strict fundamentalism can be a component of what drives the children all the way over to atheism, more quickly than more liberal Christians might. Once that authoritarian, inerrant pipe dream falls away, many just toss the whole thing almost immediately, since their faith depended upon that absolutism. That’s what happened with Matt Slick’s daughter.

    You get further inputs into the thinking process, of course, but how the person/A.I. reacts to and processes those inputs will be greatly influenced by the foundation.

  344. kudlak says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    Wouldn’t the value of an “energy credit” still be linked to people having faith in the system being able to maintain a surplus of goods to meet the needs of the population? Such a system would still be susceptible to the affect of some unforeseen disaster, like a disruption in production. or sudden increase in population, wouldn’t it?

  345. projectp says

    Well it sounds to me that Narf’s answer is No.
    EL and Kudlak’s answers are I don’t know.
    I am convinced we can do better than this crappy system with the tool of science.

    When I first heard about these kinds of systems over 20 years ago, I was in the skeptical camp for maybe a year or so. So I can understand that as well.

    This subject is simply not something one can come to a decision on in a week or even a few months in my opinion.

  346. projectp says

    its what follows that bothered me… ” It can also be used to create catastrophic nightmares”

    Sounds more like you were blowing it off, at least that’s how it came across to me.

  347. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Note that I answered the intended question, not the question literally asked. As literally asked, yes I think there is a better system than the current system. For example, take the current system and add a heavy progressive death tax on the filthy rich – the system is already better. Earlier, I answered the intended question, which loosely is: Do you think that a technocracy can work? My answer: I don’t know. You have to tell me more about technocracies before I can comment. It’s your job to describe your idea. It’s not my job to fill in the gaps for you, especially when your entire pitch is essentially one big gap.

  348. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    About rain forest destruction. It reminds me of a sign someone put up at work over the collection of disposable paper cups. In short, the sign made the case that one shouldn’t use disposable paper cups, because wasting paper like that leads to destruction of trees, and think of the trees!

    I really want to put up a rebuttal sign underneath with the actual facts of the matter, with citations. In short, almost all of our paper products come from tree farms specifically grown to produce paper. Almost all of the lost of rain forests you hear about is from very poor people clearcutting it down and wasting the trees (burning them?) to get farmland. It is a simple fact that our consumption of paper and other food products has nothing to do with loss of rain forests. Further, it is a fact that the size of the forests grown to satisfy our demand for paper products is scaled to meet the demand, which means that if you want more trees, waste more paper. True story.

    Punch line shamelessly taken from Penn and Teller’s Bullshit.

  349. projectp says

    EL it is your job, not mine. I advocate the resource based economy that’s it. Technocracy inc’s plan was a great start, but we have moved on. And If there is an improvement for the RBE I will drop the old and immediately accept the new and better design. Whatever is proven to be the best. Money no matter how you try to “fix” it, will always be like putting band-aids on cancer. It can not distribute abundance.You can not sell sand on an endless beach.

  350. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Technocracy inc’s plan was a great start, but we have moved on.

    Moved on to what? Hope? Hope does not make a functioning government.

    Money no matter how you try to “fix” it, will always be like putting band-aids on cancer. It can not distribute abundance.You can not sell sand on an endless beach.

    Say it all you want. Until you specify a superior system, and show that it’s actually superior, you’re nothing but fluster. You’re just like a creationist who thinks that by attacking evolution, creationism wins by default. Sorry, no. Attack money all you want, but technocracy will not win by default. For technocracy to win, you actually have to demonstrate that technocracies 1- actually work, and 2- are superior.

    PS: Energy credits derive their value according to the consensus of the people and the stability of the government, which means it takes just as much faith to use energy credits as it does to use modern US dollars.

  351. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, this “selling sand on an endless beach” is a bullshit analogy. If laptop computers were a naturally occurring phenomenon, you are right that no one could make money selling them.

    You’re confusing some economic concepts, which is part of your problem. Having an abundance does not mean scarcity is gone. That’s just silly talk. At a strict level, there will always be scarcity, because of the laws of physics we have been given. Your energy credits merely amounts to a rationing of the scarce resources. Scarcity is still there in your system. One person could not obtain 5 personal jumbo jets, and even supposing your magical advances in automation, I could still name a number of personal jumbo jets which a person could not obtain, and that is because resources will always be limited, finite, and scarce.

    I’m sure you’ll come back with some nonsense that one person doesn’t need 5 personal jumbo jets, and no one intrinsically wants 5 personal jumbo jets, and the only reason that anyone would want 5 personal jumbo jets is because the capitalist system trains them to be greedy. Of course, because you’ll say something like that, you’re just completely out of touch with reality, and completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology (what little of it is actually legit).

  352. Narf says

    @PP

    its what follows that bothered me… ” It can also be used to create catastrophic nightmares”
    Sounds more like you were blowing it off, at least that’s how it came across to me.

    You’re bothered by people being cautious about proposals that sound completely unworkable and have many mythical components? You’re upset by people demanding a full-scale test case?

    We’ve already had superficially similar test-cases, like Marxism. We saw how easily corrupted that was. As near as we can tell, you’re proposing some sort of similarly pure system that can not exist in reality. People will always fuck it up.

    How many more tries do we need before we dismiss it?

    What’s more is we are IN a catastrophic nightmare now.

    It can get much, much worse. A lot of Africa comes to mind.

    It can not distribute abundance.

    Yet, you’re aware that New York City needs a damned complex distribution network, right?

  353. projectp says

    Man, you guys are really fucking hopeless… I have addressed all of the bullshit you just said already. Most notably Marxism.

  354. Chikoppi says

    No, you haven’t answered the most basic of questions posed here with anything other than baseless assertions, misappropriation of terms, and appeal to consequence. I’m reminded of the gnomes from South Park…
    .
    Phase 1: Collect Underpants
    Phase 2: ?
    Phase 3: Profit
    .
    I understand you desperately want the intended “outcome,” which is fine, but you haven’t been able to convince anyone that your premise is even internally consistent, much less that it would perform as promised. You’re the one making the claim. It’s up to you to provide sufficient evidence.
    .
    Bottom line: “citation needed.”

  355. projectp says

    “Phase 1: Collect Underpants
    Phase 2: ?
    Phase 3: Profit”

    WTH are you talking about?

    it doesn’t matter.. just more BS… (bad science).
    In order to understand complex things you must first have an understanding of other things sometimes.
    It is obvious that none of you do.

    Pretty much every single question you have asked can be answered here https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2621&v=EewGMBOB4Gg skip ahead to 4:21 to pass the intro.

    I suspect you will blow it off out of hand, but that is YOUR fault. The information is there on a silver platter. I do not need to hold your hand. I was drawn into this discussion mostly by ignorant commentary. I just wanted to make a simple comment on the show and some of the comments were so off it was hard not to answer. So now you have NO excuse. Honestly if you still disagree after reviewing that. Then we are done.

    You will just call names “crackpot” etc and I will just think you are the victims of bad programming.
    You are not an AE host on the phone with a caller who is making a claim, so don’t expect me to act like one.

  356. Monocle Smile says

    I suspect you will blow it off out of hand, but that is YOUR fault. The information is there on a silver platter. I do not need to hold your hand. I was drawn into this discussion mostly by ignorant commentary. I just wanted to make a simple comment on the show and some of the comments were so off it was hard not to answer. So now you have NO excuse. Honestly if you still disagree after reviewing that. Then we are done

    You know who says crap like this? 9/11 truthers and New World Order loonies. You are a whiny child who doesn’t know how to interact with people.

  357. projectp says

    You asked for the premise… there it is layed out better than I could do in hundreds of hours of typing on this blog.
    This has nothing to do with 911 truth. you have no idea what you are talking about monocle and that just proved it.
    It’s all there Psychology, faults of the system and quotes from the federal reserves manual “Money Mechanics”
    Also the plan.

    Monocle, I would love to see you in person. Because I would bet my life you would not say that to someone of my size and build. People have a lot of balls on a forum, but act completely different in person. Especially when people like you see me. your type is the worst.

  358. projectp says

    Watched your clip Chikoppi…. typical South Park childish garbage. Garbage in Garbage out…

  359. projectp says

    “Zeitgeist? We keep going further and further into crackpottery.”

    i CALLED IT OUT….

  360. LittleGramma says

    PP
    http://jdmoyer.com/category/utopian-speculations/

    You might want to consider just a little bit of reading on sociopaths to round out your studies for this Utopia.
    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
    An excerpt if you don’t want to read the entire article.
    “To reiterate, corporations are not the enemy of the people. The corporate entity in the context of well-regulated capitalism is an engine of wealth creation, a golden goose that generates marvelous gadgets, streaming entertainment, cheap energy, the world’s knowledge at our fingertips, and other modern wonders. The enemy are the sociopathic elite who use the corporate entity to steal, exploit, destroy the environment, evade social responsibility, and generally be evil. Corporatism.

    I’d put money down that those proposing this Utopian society are also sociopaths. They have workshops, etc. that require you to pay them, yes? Videos, books and pamphlets to buy to promote more money coming into their coffers. Unpaid minions to promote their nonsense, because they simply the minions know how to spot another weak scared individual to promote more fear which translates to money for their livelihood. They are entrepreneurs, but producing nothing but fear.

    Another article:
    http://logicallibertarian.com/2013/02/20/entitlements-are-the-seeds-of-socialism-sociopaths-are-the-fertilizer/
    Again, the gist is you can make distribution as fair as you want, and the sociopaths are going to muck it up.

    If you used even just a 24 hour period to understand human nature, you would realize what you want everyone to spend their valuable time being brainwashed with is unattainable. That you’ve wasted 20 years in this nonsense is truly sad.

    http://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/socialism-for-dummies.14870/
    “[W]e can either have an economy that puts the private citizen at the center — the consumer, the worker, the entrepreneur — and lets each individual be the judge of what to buy or sell, where to work, where to invest, and what to create. Or we can put the government at the center of the economy and let the bureaucrats and politicians call the balls and strikes and decide who’s out of business, or who will get the big contract and be home free.” –Ronald Reagan

    “This perversion of rights is killing the Western world. … All the free stuff is free in the sense of those offers that begin ‘You pay nothing now!’ But you will eventually. No nation is rich enough to give you all this ‘free’ stuff year in, year out. … According to the Senate Budget Committee, U.S. government debt is currently $44,215 per person. Going by the official Obama budget numbers, it will rise over the next 10 years to $75,000. As I say, that’s per person: 75 grand in debt for every man, woman and child, not to mention every one of the ever swelling ranks of retirees and disabled Social Security recipients — or about $200,000 per household. … [A]t some point, no matter how painless the seductions of statism, you run up against the hard math: As those debt per capita numbers make plain, all this ‘free’ stuff is doing is mortgaging your liberty and lining up a future of serfdom.” –columnist Mark Steyn
    “The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from … grinding poverty … the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that.” –economist Milton Friedman

    http://learnerpeaceworld.info/003SOCIOPATHS.htm

  361. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    You asked for the premise… there it is layed out better than I could do in hundreds of hours of typing on this blog.

    .
    A point-by-point refutation of the source material you cite:
    http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/
    .

    This has nothing to do with 911 truth. you have no idea what you are talking about monocle and that just proved it.

    .
    Synopsis of Zeitgeist (the filmmaker’s prelude to “Zeitgeist addendum”), second act: “In this part of the film, the film maker examines the possibility that the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 on the United States were an inside job, that is to say the US government was either completely responsible, or allowed it to happen. It also covers a small amount about the terrorist attacks on London on July 7, 2005.”
    http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/
    .
    Definition of the philosophic burden of proof:
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

  362. projectp says

    Point by point propaganda. I read that crap a LONG time ago. You have bought into the bullshit establishment propaganda.

    I would be willing to make a bet with you. I bet that as long as we use the current system things will just get worse.
    Over the years, you will see that Projectp was correct in saying that, we will have more war. A larger divide between class and more planetary destruction. And more social instability.

  363. Chikoppi says

    @projectp

    Point by point propaganda. I read that crap a LONG time ago. You have bought into the bullshit establishment propaganda.

    Great. Then you will be able to address each of the author’s points in turn and demonstrate, with evidence and citation, that they are incorrect. That is, after all, how science is done.

    I would be willing to make a bet with you. I bet that as long as we use the current system things will just get worse.

    Even if that turned out to be true it would do nothing to substantiate that the proposal you put forth is rational or feasible. Your positive claims must stand or fall on their own evidence and merit.

  364. projectp says

    I am waiting YOUR point by point refutation with evidence and citation. not some bs propaganda site. Two can play at that game….

    “Even if that turned out to be true it would do nothing to substantiate that the proposal you put forth is rational or feasible. ”
    Of course, it wouldn’t, never said it would. It would prove that I was correct about the system we have now.
    But that course and direction has not changed since its inception. I think we both know what utter crap the money system is.

  365. Chikoppi says

    I am waiting YOUR point by point refutation with evidence and citation. not some bs propaganda site. Two can play at that game.

    I associate myself with the meticulous work of Mr. Winston found at the aforementioned link. Let this stand as my refutation as you requested. Further, I reject your claim that it is propaganda or factually errant. If it is you should have no difficulty demonstrating which of his specific claims are in error.

  366. projectp says

    “I associate myself with the meticulous work “ Too bad, I would be embarrassed to associate myself with such crackpottery.

    “Let this stand as my refutation as you requested. “ No.

    Did you watch the video? no? then you can not think for yourself. Like I said I read that crap a long time ago. and it is so stupid that it was painful to read. Look around the world for yourself and see what the effects are. A lot of people in the Atheist community are just as dogmatic about the establishment as the most fundamental theist. You seem to hold on to “skepticism” as a way to battle the cognitive dissonance.

  367. StonedRanger says

    That’s some argument there project. Threaten people with your size? Really? How eighth grade of you. I would say anything to your face that Ive said here. If your only response is to try and intimidate me with how big you are then truly you are as sad as you appear. You are the coward for making threats on an online forum. Shame on you.

  368. projectp says

    That is not a threat, the funny thing is all i have to is just stand there and people’s attitudes magically change.

  369. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @StonedRanger
    Yea, I didn’t notice that the first time around. Thanks for mentioning it. I was just skimming.
    Quoting projectp:

    Monocle, I would love to see you in person. Because I would bet my life you would not say that to someone of my size and build. People have a lot of balls on a forum, but act completely different in person. Especially when people like you see me. your type is the worst.

    What an asshole.

  370. projectp says

    Haven’t you ever heard someone talking shit on the phone or online and then when you meet face to face they realize they stepped into a big pile of trouble by running their mouth? I made an observation about his attitude that i have witnessed over and over..

  371. projectp says

    Call me asshole all you want EL, I can say the same to you and half of the people on here. A bunch of assholes. Ignorant and brainwashed as fuck. You have demonstrated that you do not deserve ANY respect from me. I gave you a lot of time and opportunity and you failed. You are about as enlightened as Ray Comfort.

  372. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @projectp
    This shall be the last thing I say to you, unless you shape up, which is unlikely.

    You threatened a friend with physical violence. Fuck you.

    You use sources of well known bullshit, such as Zeitgeist. Fuck you.

    You defend technocracies solely by attacking alternatives, and not once offering up real evidence and argument in favor of technocracies. Fuck you.

    Come back when you actually have positive arguments in favor of technocracies. None of us care at all about your tirades against the establishment economic system if you don’t have a specific alternative which you are willing to describe.

    tl;dr Fuck off.

  373. projectp says

    “You threatened a friend with physical violence. Fuck you.”

    bullshit… I said he wouldn’t talk that shit to my face. a threat would have been. Meet me and i will kick your ass.
    You are a moron EL.

  374. Chikoppi says

    I watched the Zeitgeist videos years ago. They’ve been floating around YouTube for quite some time. That is was a pile of misconceptions wrapped in vague innuendo was blatant on first viewing. The videos have earned a well deserved reputation as conspiratorial works of fancy and junk economics as authored by a dubious individual. This is Deepak Chopra with “quantum” replaced by the “creeping shadows of the Illuminati.”
    .
    You claim that the critique of the film is “crap” and “too painful to read,” yet you are unwilling to or unable to refute it. Therefore, as the critique provides evidence and analysis whereas you provide none, I see no reason to give the videos any further consideration beyond my initial assessment.
    .
    I am an advocate for a regulated market, financial transparency, labor rights, progressive taxation, strong consumer protections and campaign finance reform. I also support single-payer healthcare (so in that regard I might be called a socialist). I do not subscribe to ideologies and prefer a steady regimene of evidence-based and incremental financial reforms and monetary policy. Why? Because the current economic system will have to do until something better is discovered…but that has yet to happen. Like democracy, it’s a terrible form of governance, but it’s far better than any of the alternatives.
    .
    Good luck in your future endeavors.

  375. projectp says

    ” Like democracy, it’s a terrible form of governance”

    At least you admit that much. But you are wrong about the alternatives. You just don’t understand them.

    I will make a guess, but I bet most of you were Theist before becoming non-believers. You went through a long process of denial and cognitive dissonance. The same thing is happening here, you just don’t realize it. I have always been a freethinker, never believed in the sky daddy. So to me the whole god question is pretty elementary. And old hat.
    You should realize that you are also indoctrinated in many other ways by other institutions.
    From childhood you are taught to think about the market and your part in it. What job will you do when you grow up etc.
    It is a forgone conclusion that you will be a cog in the system and the idea is reinforced on a daily basis.

    To be an effective freethinker you must question your most basic assumptions about our established world on a regular basis.

  376. Monocle Smile says

    Also, projectp, your blather about your physical prowess broke my irony meter. And no, you couldn’t take me in real life, either.

  377. Monocle Smile says

    Haven’t you ever heard someone talking shit on the phone or online and then when you meet face to face they realize they stepped into a big pile of trouble by running their mouth?

    No, because I’m not a fucking psycho who tracks down people who are dickheads to me on the internet. The fuck is wrong with you?

  378. projectp says

    ” Like democracy, it’s a terrible form of governance”
    At least you admit that much. But you are wrong about the alternatives. You just don’t understand them.
    I will make a guess, but I bet most of you were Theist before becoming non-believers. You went through a long process of denial and cognitive dissonance. The same thing is happening here, you just don’t realize it. I have always been a freethinker, never believed in the sky daddy. So to me the whole god question is pretty elementary. And old hat.
    You should realize that you are also indoctrinated in many other ways by other institutions.
    From childhood you are taught to think about the market and your part in it. What job will you do when you grow up etc.
    It is a forgone conclusion that you will be a cog in the system and the idea is reinforced on a daily basis.
    To be an effective freethinker you must question your most basic assumptions about our established world on a regular basis.

  379. LittleGramma says

    I’m only 5 feet 2 inches tall. You remember I married, and raised only sons. You think I am scared of a man of large stature?
    Might be if you had a gun and actually threatened my life.
    Other than that, with your current state of mind I would suspect you were a kid who was left to his own upbringing and brainwashed by his hippy parents who were the most ridiculous nut jobs of my generation with all their rants of anti-establishment, while feeling entitled to do nothing except find their nirvana with drugs. And who also are guilty of turning their own and others’ children onto drugs. Age didn’t seem to matter.

  380. Narf says

    Heh, what did I miss?

    So, PP is referencing material from the Zeitgeist movement, as if that’s supposed to grant him credibility with us, somehow? 😀 Not that any specific person is going to be wrong about everything they say, but you have to go to a source with a little more credibility than that, man.

    … and he’s trying to intimidate people with his supposed impressive size? Wow, and I thought his position couldn’t devolve any further than it already had. This is almost funny. Dude, if you have to engage in physical threats on the internet, it just makes you more of a joke. It really doesn’t help.

  381. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    feeling entitled to do nothing except find their nirvana with drugs. And who also are guilty of turning their own and others’ children onto drugs.

    Ok. I’m calling it. This has got to be a Poe.

  382. Narf says

    I dunno, man. At the very least, if she’s a non-theist as she says, she somehow managed to hold onto all of the religious baggage, while leaving the religion itself behind.

    I tried, I don’t know how many times, to get her to come up with some sort of rational basis for any position she has supported. She seems to be stuck on some weird vitalist thing, which makes her somehow revere the moment that the sperm and egg join, despite the fact that more than half of the suckers never even implant. I also couldn’t get through to her about the in potentia argument she was making and how irrational it is.

    And I’ve never seen an atheist adhere so firmly to how things ought to be, rather than how they actually are, in the development of an argument. I give up on her.

    We’ve picked up a couple of real winners in this thread.

  383. projectp says

    “So, PP is referencing material from the Zeitgeist movement, as if that’s supposed to grant him credibility with us, ”

    I could care less about having cred with you crackpots.

    “… and he’s trying to intimidate people with his supposed impressive size?”

    I would love to see where I was doing that…. that is nothing but spin. I was pointing out the fact the people like MS talk down to people UNTIL they see you in person. If you think that is a threat you are a complete idiot.

    back to the real points….

    I will make a guess, but I bet most of you were Theist before becoming non-believers. You went through a long process of denial and cognitive dissonance. The same thing is happening here, you just don’t realize it. I have always been a freethinker, never believed in the sky daddy. So to me the whole god question is pretty elementary. And old hat.
    You should realize that you are also indoctrinated in many other ways by other institutions.
    From childhood you are taught to think about the market and your part in it. What job will you do when you grow up etc.
    It is a forgone conclusion that you will be a cog in the system and the idea is reinforced on a daily basis.
    To be an effective freethinker you must question your most basic assumptions about our established world on the regular.

  384. Narf says

    I could care less about having cred with you crackpots.

    So, now we’re the one’s proposing crackpot ideas. Riiiiiiight. Hate to say this man, but you’re the only one here proposing insane shit. We’re just not buying what you’re selling … you know, like good skeptics, although I realize you don’t understand what that means.

    I would love to see where I was doing that…. that is nothing but spin.

    Uh huh. Either way, it’s a pretty stupid thing to even bring up, online.

    I will make a guess, but I bet most of you were Theist before becoming non-believers. You went through a long process of denial and cognitive dissonance.

    Nope, wrong … again. I was never a believer, despite being raised Catholic. The childhood brainwashing never took.

    The same thing is happening here, you just don’t realize it.

    Heh heh heh heh heh. Wow, someone here has an undeserved, rather high opinion of himself.

    To be an effective freethinker you must question your most basic assumptions about our established world on the regular.

    And swallow every pipe dream that challenges the status quo, when someone tries to sell it to us? Uhhhhhhhh, nope.

  385. projectp says

    “but you’re the only one here proposing insane shit. ” The monetary system is insane.

    “Uh huh. Either way, it’s a pretty stupid thing to even bring up, online.”
    No it wasn’t, it happens a lot and I was sick of his goddamn mouth.

    “Nope, wrong … again. I was never a believer, despite being raised Catholic. The childhood brainwashing never took.”
    That’s why is said “MOST of you”. If you are exempt that point doesn’t matter. But the other establishment brainwashing took effect.

    “Heh heh heh heh heh. Wow, someone here has an undeserved, rather high opinion of himself.”
    Or your just wrong…. And I would rather think highly of myself than low.

    “And swallow every pipe dream that challenges the status quo, when someone tries to sell it to us? Uhhhhhhhh, nope.”
    you have already done that. and bought into the system 100 percent. The status quo is a pipedream.

    You are one of the funniest looking bastards I have ever seen. your goofy country face literally matches your idiotic opinions perfectly. The name Narf couldn’t fit better either! lol!

  386. Narf says

    You are one of the funniest looking bastards I have ever seen. your goofy country face literally matches your idiotic opinions perfectly. The name Narf couldn’t fit better either! lol!

    Really? That’s the best you have?

  387. Monocle Smile says

    No it wasn’t, it happens a lot and I was sick of his goddamn mouth

    The only reason to get riled up over online insults is that they strike a chord of truth.

    You are one of the funniest looking bastards I have ever seen

    Says the guy who probably looks like the Elephant Man fucked a dead witch.

    you have already done that. and bought into the system 100 percent

    Hey fuckface, no one here has said the current system is perfect or even all that great. That doesn’t make your turd any more polished. Do you go out looking for swinging baseball bats to collide with your skull, or is it something that just happens?

  388. projectp says

    I have had enough from the assholes on this blog. no more pulling punches… I will give what I get.
    Narf, EL Littlegramma and MS. All sure love to give a good thrashing but you can’t take it.

    You are some of the dumbest country bastards I have ever had the displeasure of talking too.
    You wouldn’t make it one day here in NYC.

  389. Narf says

    Dude, at least try for accuracy, if you’re going to just randomly flame people. I’m originally from Chicago; one of the others is from San Francisco; and the third is from some other large city that I can’t currently remember. I have no idea about LittleGramma, since she just showed up about the same time you did.

  390. projectp says

    then why are you so damn country Narf ?
    All of a sudden you guys don’t support the monetary system? sounds like bullshit to me.

  391. projectp says

    Country doesn’t just mean you live in the country. it’s slang for backwards and stupid.

  392. Narf says

    then why are you so damn country Narf ?

    😕 That doesn’t even deserve a response.

    All of a sudden you guys don’t support the monetary system?

    What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? When we say that we don’t think your proposal will work, and we point out that you don’t even have a proposal, just some vague nonsense about how these people will create the perfect system (before you distance yourself from them), that doesn’t mean that we think that the current system is some idyllic system.

    If you were paying attention and were actually interested in engaging us honestly, you would have noticed the extra discussion going on amongst others, like me and kudlak, about the pros and cons of existing, tested systems.

  393. projectp says

    And another thing, I wasn’t’ RANDOMLY flaming people. The people I mentioned were flaming the shit out of me AND each other sometimes! I just decided, enough was enough. it seems to be the only language you people understand.

    Although completely missing the mark and pretty misguided, Chikoppi seemed OK. At least understood that the system is bad.

  394. projectp says

    ” create the perfect system ” there is no such thing…. red herring.
    Completely, Testing a system is not realistic or needed. We sure didn’t do that to this one.

  395. Narf says

    At least understood that the system is bad.

    … and understood that your non-proposal, if you ever got around to proposing anything coherent, would almost certainly be far worse.

  396. projectp says

    that is where he is wrong.I guarantee you, he nor you can tell me how it works. If you can’t tell me how it works , you don’t understand it, if you don’t understand it you can not say it won’t work.

  397. Narf says

    Testing a system is not realistic or needed.

    Testing is not needed, before we stage a complete revolution and install an autocratic system that will attempt to eliminate basic drives of the populace in order for it to function properly. Yes, that’s worked out so well in the past …

  398. Narf says

    that is where he is wrong.I guarantee you, he nor you can tell me how it works.

    Dude, you have yet to demonstrate any ability to explain how it works. You backpedaled like mad from your only attempt, as soon as one of us started examining it. If we don’t understand what you’re proposing, you have only yourself to blame.

  399. projectp says

    Autocracy: government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.

    You do not understand it at all.
    you can not tell me how it works. If you can’t tell me how it works , you don’t understand it, if you don’t understand it you can not critic it. You are smart enough to know this Narf.

  400. Narf says

    Same thing that I said before applies here. You’re basing this all upon smoke and mirrors. When one of us was foolish enough to spend the time examining what you posted, you pulled a bait-and-switch. You lost all credibility after that maneuver, and you haven’t done anything to improve your situation since then.

  401. projectp says

    1) No money or market system.
    Market theory assumes a number of things which have proven to either be false, marginally beneficial, or outright socially detrimental.

    The core problems to consider are the following:

    A) The need for “Infinite Growth” which is mathematically unsustainable and ecologically detrimental. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”. In order to keep people employed, people must constantly consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources.

    B) A “Corruption Generating” Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, labor exploitation and many other issues. The vast majority of people in prison today there because of monetary related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes.

    Also, if one was to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others – it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products and very often they are even at odds.

    C) A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe rather than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US and bottled water from Fuji Japan, while western companies will go to the deprived 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This “cost efficiency” generates extreme “technical inefficiency” and is only justifiable within the market system for the sake of saving money.

    In a RBEM, the focus is maximum technical efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor as compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the “strategically best” possible goods. (see more below) In other words, the system is planned, to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

    D) A propensity for “Establishments”. Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit, and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self perpetuation.

    If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a “competition” mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level- which is the competition against new advents which would make them obsolete, outright.

    The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and ‘Big Oil’ collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called “Who Killed the Electric Car?”. The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well being of those on the pay role, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( ie – the perpetuation of “Hybrid” cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced progressive drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.

    In a RBE, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything. If safe and useful, it would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving, monetary nature.

    E) An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay “competitive” This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production and hence stay “competitive” against another company… which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers “create the best possible goods at the lower possible prices” is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading, for it is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the production of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis.

    They very simply cannot make the “strategically best” physically – it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember – people buy what they can afford to. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand. In a RBEM, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design, with recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste.

    You will notice the term “strategically best” was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources, with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into account all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retroactions and the like. In other words, we would not blindly use titanium for, say, every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the “strongest” materials for the job. That narrow practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be accessed through analysis of relevant attributes – such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statistical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be accessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time. It is mere issue of calculation.

    F) A propensity for monopoly and cartel due to the basic motivation of growth and increased market share. This is a point that economic theorists will often deny, under the assumption that open competition is self regulating that monopolies and cartels are extremely rare anomalies in a free-market system. This “invisible hand” assumption holds little validity historically, not to mention the outstanding legislation around the issue, which proves its infeasibility. In America, there have been numerous monopolies, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft. Cartels, which are essentially Monopolies by way of collusion between the largest competitors in an industry, are also persistent to this day, while less obvious to the casual observer. In any case, the “free market” itself does not resolve these issues – it always takes the government to step in and break up the monopolies.

    This aside, the more important point is that in an economy based on “growth”, it is only natural for a corporation to want to expand and hence dominate. After all, that is the basis of economic stability in the modern world – expansion. Expansion of any corporation, always gravitates toward monopoly or cartel, for, again, the basic drive of competition is to out do your competitor. In other words, monopoly and cartel are absolutely natural in the competitive system. In fact, it is inevitable, for again, the very basis is to seek dominance over market share. The true detriment of this reality goes back to the point above- the inherent propensity of an “Establishment” to preserve its institution. If a medical cartel is influencing the FDA, then new ideas which void that cartel’s income sources will often be fought, regardless of the social benefits being thwarted.

    G) The market system is driven, in part, by Scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world’s people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits.

    Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This scarcity logic also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn’t even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed.

    While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of “running out”— the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity driven based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never “run out” of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporations who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.

    2) Automation of Labor
    As the trend of what appears to be an exponential increase in the evolution of information technology, robotics, and computerization- it has become apparent that human labor is becoming more and more inefficient in regard to meeting the demands necessary for supporting the global population. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an increasing trend of “technological unemployment”, which is the phenomenon where humans are replaced by machines in the work force. This trend, while debatable in regard to its ultimate long term effect on employment, creates a propensity to displace the worker and hence the consumer, slowing consumption.

    That stated, this issue is actually overshadowed by a larger social imperative: That the use of machine labor (mechanization) is provably more efficient than human performance in virtually all sectors. If one was to track, for example, the performance output of factory production such as within the steel industry in the US for the past 200 years, we find that not only do less than 5% of the workforce now work in such factories, the efficiency and output capacities have increased substantially. The trend, in fact, now shows that “Employment is Inverse to Productivity.” The more mechanization that occurs, the more productive an industry becomes.

    Today, there are repetitive occupations which simply do not need to exist given the state of automation and computerization (“cybernation”). Not only would mechanization in these areas reduce the mundane burden and allow more free time for people, it also would, more importantly, increase productivity. Machines do not need breaks, vacations, sleep, etc. The use of mechanization on its own means to create many forms of abundance on this planet, from food to physical goods.

    However to do this, the traditional labor system we have simply cannot exist. The reality is that our labor for income system is stifling progress in its requirement to “keep people working” for the sake of “economic stability”. We are reaching a stage where the efficiency of automation is overriding and making obsolete the system of labor for income. This trend shows no sign of slowing, especially in regard to the now dominant Service Industry, which is increasingly being automated in the form of kiosks, robotics and other forms. Likewise, due to phenomena related to Moore’s law and the growing in-expense of computers and machines, it is likely that it is simply a matter of time before corporations simply can not rationalize keeping human labor anymore, as the automation systems will become too cheap. Of course, this is a paradoxical market phenomenon, called by some theorists as “the contradiction of capitalism”, for it is, in effect, removing the consumer (laborer) itself and hence reducing consumption.

    Apart from those issues, it is important to also consider human labor contributions based on social relevance, not monetary gain. In a RBE, there would be no reason to have such occupations as Banking, Trading, Insurance, Cashiers, Brokers, Advertising… or anything related to the governance of money.

    All human actions in the form of institutionalized labor should also have the highest social return. There is no logic in wasting resources, time, and energy on operations that do not have a direct and tangible function. This adjustment alone would remove millions of jobs, for the idea of “working for money” as a purpose would no longer exist.

    In turn, all the poor demographic, shoddy goods, vanity items and culturally contrived creations designed to influence people for reasons of status (for the sole sake of profit) would also no longer exist, saving countless amounts of time and resources.

    One final note on this issue: Some hear this and they assume that this voids the Communicative Arts and personal and social expression as far as painting, sculpture, music and the like. No. These mediums of expression will likely thrive like never before, for the amount of free time made available to people will permit a renaissance of creativity, invention, along with community and social capital. The burden of labor obligation will also reduce stress and create a more amiable culture.

    There is a difference between creating for the sake of keeping society sustainable and efficient, focusing on resource preservation, product efficiency and strategic allocation of labor for those things which generate a tangible social return – and creating for personal expression, exploration, experimentation, and hence art, which has been a staple of human evolution since the dawn of time.

    3) Technological Unification of Earth via “Systems” Approach
    We live in a symbiotic/synergistic planetary ecosystem, with a cause-effect balance reflecting a single system of earthy operation. Buckminster Fuller defined this well when he referred to the planet as “Spaceship Earth”. It is time we reflect this natural state of affairs in our societal affairs on this planet. The fact of the matter is that the human societies, which are dispersed across the globe, require resources which are also un-uniformly dispersed across the globe. Our current procedure for enabling resource distribution comes in the form of corporations which seek and claim “ownership” of our earthly resources, which they in turn “sell” to others, in the name of profit. The problems inherent in this practice are numerous again due to the self-interest based disposition inherent in selling anything for personal gain, as denoted before. But, this is only partially the issue in the larger scheme of things when it come to the reality that we live on a finite planet and resource management and preservation should be the number one concern in regard to human survival- especially with the population explosion of the last 200 years.

    Two people are born every second on this planet and each one of those humans needs a lifetime of food, energy, water and the like. Given this fundamental need to understand what we have, the rates of depletion and, invariably, the need to streamline industry in the most efficient, productive way, a Global System of Resource Management must be put in place. It is just common sense. This is an extensive subject when one considers the technical, quantitative variables needed for implementation. However, for the sake of overview, it can be stated that the first step is a Full Global Survey of all earthly resources. Then, based on a quantitative analysis of the properties of each material, a strategically defined process of production is constructed from the bottom up, using such variables as negative retro-actions, renew-ability, etc. (More on this can be found in the section called Project Earth in the ZM lecture called “Where Are We Going?”). Then consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitoring, distribution logically formulated, etc. In other words, it is a full Systems Approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution; with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability. Given the mathematically defined attributes, as based on all available information at the time, along with the state of technology at the time, the parameters for social operation in the industrial complex become self evident, with decisions arrived at by way of computation, not human opinion. This is where computer intelligence becomes an important tool for social governance, for only the computation ability/programming of computers can access and strategically regulate such processes efficiently, and in real time. This technological application is not novel, it is simply ‘scaled out’ from current methods already known.

    4) Access over Property
    The concept of property, unannounced to most people today, is a fairly new social concept. Before the neolithic revolution, as extrapolated from current hunter and gatherer societies existing today, property relationships did not exist as we know them. Neither did money or even trade in many cases. Communities existed in an egalitarian fashion, living within the carrying capacity of the regions and the natural production built in. It was only after direct agricultural development was discovered, eventually proceeding with resource acquisition by ship traders and the like – up to the modern day of power establishments and corporations, – that property became the highly defined staple of society as we know it today.

    With that understood, which dismisses the common notion that property is a result of some kind of empirical “human nature”, the notion of “no property” is also today often blindly associated with “Communism” and the works of Karl Marx. It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed “Communist” ideals. There is no relation between the two, for communism was not derived from the needs to preserve and manage resources efficiently. Communism, in theory and practice, was based on a social/moral relativism which was culturally specific – not environmentally specific – which is the case with a RBE.

    The real issue relevant to meeting human needs is not ownership – it is access. People use things, they do not “own” them. Ownership is a non-operational, protectionist advent, derived from generations of scarcity over resources, currently compounded by market based adverting which supports status/class division for the sake of monetary gain . To put it another way, ownership is a form of controlled restriction, both physically and ideologically. Property as a system of controlled restriction, coupled with the monetary value inherent and hence the market consequences is unsustainable, limiting and impractical.

    In a RBEM, the focus moves from static ownership to strategic access, with a system designed for society to obtain access as needed. For example, rather than owning various forms of recreational sporting equipment, Access Centers are set up, typically in regions where such actions occur, where a person simply “checks out” the equipment- uses it and returns it. This “library” type arrangement can be applied to virtually any type of human need. Of course, those reading this who have been conditioned into a more individualistic, materialistic mindset often objects with claims such as ” what if I want green, custom golf clubs and only white are available?”. This is a culturally contrived, biased reservation. The issue in question is utility, not vanity. Human expression has been molded by the needs of the current market based system (consumption) into values which are simply nonfunctional and irrelevant. Yes, this would require a value adjustment to quality, rather than identity. The fact is, even for those who object from the standpoint of their interest in personal identity, the overarching social ramifications of such an social approach will create benefits that will greatly overshadow any such arbitrary personal preference, creating new values to replace the outdated ones.

    These include : (a) No Property Crime: In a world of access rather than ownership, without money, there is no incentive to steal, for there is no resale value. You can not steal something no one owns and you certainly couldn’t sell it. (b) Access Abundance: It has been denoted that the average automobile sits in parking spaces for the majority of its life span, wasting space and time. Rather than having this wasteful consequence of the ownership system, one car could facilitate a large number of users in a given region, with only a fraction of the production/resource needs. [c) Peak Efficiency of Production: Unlike today, where the market system must perpetuate inherently inferior products for the sake of economic turnover, we could actually design goods to last, using the best materials and processes strategically available. We no longer make “cheap” products to serve a poor demographic ( which is the majority). This attribute alone will save cataclysmic amounts of resources, while also enabling a society to have access to goods and services they would never have had in a world based on money, inherent obsolescence, and property.

    5) Self-Contained/Localized City and Production Systems.
    There are many brilliant engineers who have worked to tackle the issue of industrial design, from Jacque Fresco, to Buckminster fuller to Nicola Tesla. Behind such designs, such as Jacque Frescos’ famed Circles cities or Fuller’s Geodesic Dome, rests a basic train of thought : Strategic Efficiency and Maximization of Productivity.

    For example, Fresco’s “circular city” is constructed of a series of “belts”, each serving a social function, such a energy production, research, recreation, living, etc. Each city is a hence a system, where all needs are produced in the city complex, in a localized fashion, whenever possible. For example, renewable energy generation occurs near the outer perimeter. Food production is produced closer to the middle in industrial sized greenhouses.

    This is very different in its logic from the “globalization” based economy we live in today, which wastes outrageous amounts of energy and resources due to unneeded transport and labor processing. Likewise, transportation within the city is strategically created to eliminate the use of detached automobiles, except for rare cases, such as emergency vehicles. Homes are created to be micro-systems as well, with as much power generation occurring internally, such as from sunlight absorbed by the building structure using photovoltaic technology. More information on these city system can be found at http://www.thevenusproject.com.

    The Geodesic Dome, perfected by Buckminster Fuller, offer another efficiency oriented medium within the same train of thought. Fuller’s goal was to build designs to do more with fewer resources. He noticed problems inherent in conventional construction techniques, and recognized the indigenous strength of naturally occurring structures. The advantages include: much stronger than a conventional building while using less material to construct; domes can be built very quickly because they are of a modular prefab construction and suit being mass produced; They also use less energy to keep warm/cool than a conventional box structure. More information can be found at http://www.bfi.org/

    In the end, the fundamental interest is, again, sustainability and efficiency on all levels, from the “housing deign” to the “earth design”. The market system actually fights this efficiency due to the broken, competitive nature inherent.

    6) Science as the Methodology for Governance
    The application of “the scientific method for social concern” is oft-repeated mantra for the basis of social operation in a RBEM. While the obviousness of this in regard to industry is simple enough to understand, it is important to also realize its value in regard to human behavior. Science, historically speaking, has often been derailed as a cold, restrictive discipline, reserved for the sake of mere technology and invention. Little regard seems to be currently given to its use in the understanding of human behavior.

    Superstitious thought, which has been powerfully dominant in human evolution, has worked on the basis that the human being was somehow detached from the physical world. We have “souls”; “spirits”; we are “divine”; we are related/guided by an all seeing, all knowing, controlling god, etc.

    Conversely, yet oddly similarly, there is an argument that humans have “free will” in their decisions and that we have the open ability to choose our actions, absent of the influence of our environment or even education. Now, while the vastness of the prior two statements and many reading those could find numerous cultural arguments to claim the contrary, this doesn’t change the basic reality that we humans have historically liked to think that we are special and unique from the rest of the organisms and natural phenomena around us.

    However, as time has gone on, it has become increasingly obvious that we are not special and that there is no such thing as “special” in the natural world…for everything is special based on the uniqueness of all organisms. There is no reason to assume the human being is any more important or intrinsically different or special than a mole, a tree, an ant, a leaf or a cancer cell. This isn’t “New Age” rhetoric – it is fundamental logic. We are physical phenomena – nothing more or less.

    We are greatly influenced by our culture and our values and behaviors can only mostly be a result of our conditioning, as external phenomena interacts with our genetic predispositions. For example, we have a notion called “talent”, which is another word for a genetic predisposition to a given behavior, or set of behaviors. A piano prodigy might have an inherent ability that enables them to learn more quickly and perform in a more acute way than another, who has spent the same time in practice, but doesn’t have the genetic predisposition. Be that as it may, that “talented” person still had to learn ‘what a piano was’ and how to play it. In other words, genes are not autonomous initiators of commands. It takes an environmental trigger to allow for the propensity to materialize.

    At any rate, it is not the point of this article to expand on the argument of “nature and nurture”. The point is that we have proven to be scientifically defined and a product of a traceable causality and it is this understanding that can allow us to slow and even stop the aberrant, or “criminal” behavior we see in society today such a abuse, murder, theft and the like. The logic, once the effects of human conditioning are understood, is to remove the environmental attributes which are enabling the reactions.

    Just as an abused dog who has been starved for a week might have a knee jerk reaction to react very violently to an otherwise innocuous passerby, we humans have the same behavior dynamic. If you don’t want people to steal food, do not deprive them of it. It has been found that prisons are now generating more violence than they are curbing. If you teach a child to be a hateful racist, then he will carry those values into the rest his life, very often. Human values and hence human behavior are shaped by the environment in a cause and effect based way, no different than a leaf being blown by the wind.

    In a RBEM, the central focus in regard to removing aberrant human actions is not to “punish them”, but to find the reasons for their offensive actions and work to eliminate them. Humans are products of their environment and personal/social reform is a scientific process.

  402. LittleGramma says

    “I dunno, man. At the very least, if she’s a non-theist as she says, she somehow managed to hold onto all of the religious baggage, while leaving the religion itself behind.”

    Apparently, I am truly clueless to expressing myself here. Is there a particular book you have found most helpful to point out what constitutes religious baggage? I tossed out that brainwashing nearly 30 years ago and would prefer no one ever get the impression I believe in the sky god/s.

  403. Narf says

    There’s a lot of quasi-mystical baggage that you seem to have held onto, though. Can you come up with any rational reason that we should particularly care when a sperm fertilizes an egg cell? We already outlined where our line is and what basis we have for picking that line. I never saw you do the same.

    Your anti-sex attitude and promotion of the sex-shaming culture is another remnant. I can write off your unawareness of what is going on in the rest of the country, in regards to sex education, at least. Oregon has fairly decent sex education, as does Washington State, most of the New England states, and Illinois. Most of the rest of the country is in pretty shit shape, though, with the neo-cons pushing fundamentalist Christianity into the system, everywhere they can manage.

  404. LittleGramma says

    “All sure love to give a good thrashing but you can’t take it.

    You are some of the dumbest country bastards I have ever had the displeasure of talking too.
    You wouldn’t make it one day here in NYC.”

    I’m sure we could all manage, but where I live is paradise compared to NYC. You can count me out from ever bothering to visit that mess.

  405. LittleGramma says

    Narf,
    I don’t understand where I’ve been misunderstood, but I’ll try again.

    People can have all the sex they want. I don’t care. What I believe should be (but fully understand never will be) is for people who have the potential to impregnate or be impregnated be responsible for the sex they do have by taking care to prevent pregnancy, and therefore to prevent the need to use abortion as a form of family planning. And instead of depending on the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves: to have responsible sex and to create families only when they can provide for them.

    We sterilize dogs and cats to prevent unwanted dog and cat populations, so what is so hard for humans to follow through chemically or barrier to prevent children they don’t want without resorting to sterilization? Sterilization of pets is infinitely cheaper than allowing the pet/s to have litters, but many won’t spend that money.

    Lightbulb: So, I guess I’ve answered my own question. People are going to be idiots in regard to their own reproductive potential as they are with their pets.

    I’ve done more reading and thinking on the topic.
    Abortion at any stage. It is killing in the basic definition of the word. However, at this stage in our society I can’t place it in the same legal frame as murder, since there will always be the fact that people will always need to do it to survive (live their life without burden of dependent infant person). However, since women know very soon that they are pregnant, should be educated to seek abortion ASAP, medical or chemical (high estrogen pills).

    When it IS murder and IS already legally recognized as such is when a woman is injured or murdered causing fatal injury to the pregnancy (fetus in any stage).

    Also realized in the recent reading is the need for me to revisit the topic of souls. If no one is going to an afterlife, then when is a person a person? I know when you think it is. I need to determine that for myself. I’ve always enjoyed the fantasy of sci fi shows, ghosts, ancient aliens, beings of light, etc…even though I don’t believe in them. But I never entertained the soul topic when I left religion behind as it related to abortion.

    ProjectP
    I scanned the article, but it’s pretty apparent your TZM theorists have yet to understand that sociopath’s exist and are untreatable. Boredom not scarcity is not what drives their behavior toward others, period.

    I have a post to you with too many links still in moderation. Around 385 if it stays in the same position as I see it.

  406. kudlak says

    @ projectp
    I see that this conversation has degraded into insult and references to the Zeitgeist movement. I’m more than convinced that you don’t even understand the thing you are hoping for, so continuing this conversation is just a waste of time for both of us. Like I said before, life is just too short to spend on crap like this.

  407. projectp says

    “I see that this conversation has degraded into insult and references to the Zeitgeist movement.”

    That is an insult, i was insulted in almost every single post made by one of the follow.

    Kudlak (in the beginning, mostly) , EL, Monocle, LittleG, Narf. I decided to give what I got.
    when I bent over backwards to not insult I was STILL accused of it so I said fuck it.

    You have demonstrated that you know nothing about TZM or Technocracy or any system proposed.
    You have some prejudices about TZM concerning 911, and TZM only has an opinion about that, it is not part of the proposed system. I stay away from that because 1. arguing about it is pointless. 2. it just obfuscates a complex iussue.

    if you want to quit that is all good by me. the Star trek BS was just that anyway, and had nothing to do with what i proposed.

  408. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Important clarification concerning the kind of atmosphere I want to foster in this place:

    when I bent over backwards to not insult I was STILL accused of it so I said fuck it.

    I think that some of the regulars here can be needlessly rude. I try to beat some heads around here if they’re not nice to all newcomers. Sorry. We’re working on it.

    Most of us don’t care that much about insults. We care about massive bait-and-switches. We care when someone purports to argue in defense of X, but only by attacking Y and never by providing a positive defense of X. We care when insults are used as a replacement for good argument. We care when some random asshat comes in and threatens one of us with physical violence because we happen to disagree on a topic of discussion.

    You can continue to be insulting all you want, as long as you make good arguments. Of course, being insulting is mildly irritating. Further, I don’t own the place, and the owners of the blog are free to do as they will with their place. This is merely my own non-binding opinion, but which is probably representative.

  409. projectp says

    I agree with you EL, on these points. With these nuances.

    1. I did not bait and switch. I said those plans were ideas and starting points. at least 6 times.
    2. I never threatened anyone. I made an observation that people like to talk smack until they see you in person. then some sort of magical change in their attitude happens. When they see you are not someone they can bully they sing a different tune. To say that is a threat is absurd and hyperbolic.

    I do however, agree with pretty much everything TMZ has proposed and I think it is a very forward-thinking plan.
    So any false accusations of bait and switch can not be done from here on.
    I don’t see how you can expect someone to agree with ANY idea as complex as a social design100% that is just not reasonable.

  410. Narf says

    @434 – kudlak

    I see that this conversation has degraded into insult and references to the Zeitgeist movement.

    Well, PP did link a video from the Zeitgeist movement, so everything that followed was fair. He referred to it first, not any of the rest of us.

  411. Monocle Smile says

    I did not bait and switch. I said those plans were ideas and starting points. at least 6 times

    AFTER EL’s patient review, you ass scratching baboon. THAT was the bait-and-switch, which has been explained to you at least 7 times.

    I never threatened anyone. I made an observation that people like to talk smack until they see you in person

    My IQ would have to be smaller than my shoe size to ignore the obvious subtext. You need your diaper changed.

  412. projectp says

    MS, It does not matter WHEN the review was, that IS my position whether you like it or not.

  413. Monocle Smile says

    MS, It does not matter WHEN the review was

    That’s the crux of our beef, you fucking douche. You linked us to a website and claimed it explained your position. EL did a review of a doc he found on the website that the website ITSELF cites as an authority, and THEN you backpedaled and blamed us for not understanding your position. You were incredibly disingenuous and it’s obvious to everyone.

    And no, there’s no “ignore” option. Sorry, fuckface.

  414. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Two Parter because links.

    Because I enjoy pain. This time I skipped ahead and am merely skimming.

    http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/uploads/upload/file/19/The_Zeitgeist_Movement_Defined_PDF_Final.pdf

    Some brief thoughts.

    For a group that prides itself on accurate scientific knowledge, it has some rather extreme falsified pseudoscience in it, such as this bit:

    A cheaply made nuclear power plant in Japan might not mean much to people in America. However, if that plant was to have a large scale technical failure, the fallout and pollution might make its way over to American homes, proving that you are never safe in the long run unless you have a global consciousness.

    The above bit is not just a little wrong, or even understandably wrong. This is out and out hysteria contrary to all known evidence. It’s as bad as denying the moon landing. See: Fukushima.

    From skimming, the paper proposes to use near exlusively the so-called green energy sources, such as geothermal, wind, solar, hydro. I know my position is rather controversial, but I have to call this what it is – a pipedream. The only workable solution with present technology is conventional nuclear fission, and especially Gen 4 nuclear reactors like IFR and LFTR. Anything else is a pipedream, or a significant cause of global climate change.

    Another bit that caught my eye:

    According to engineer Ashok Gadgil, inventor of portable UV systems, “In terms of energy use, 60 watts of electrical power – which is comparable to the power used in one ordinary table lamp – is enough to disinfect water at the rate of one ton per hour, or fifteen liters per minute…This much water is enough to meet the drinking water needs of a community of 2,000 people.”589 This device Gadgil developed for rural, poor areas can run off of solar panels and weighs only 15 pounds and has no toxic discharge.

    No toxic discharge – except for the toxic nature of solar cell production, and disposal or recycling, which is IMHO worse than the waste of the Gen 4 nuclear reactors like IFR and LFTR.

    Today, machines now make and design machines.

    Bullshit.

    The development of this commercial regulation and the rationale behind the very existence of “state governance” is quite easy to trace historically. After the Neolithic revolution, humanity’s once nomadic patterns shifted toward a new propensity to farm, settle and create towns. Specialization flourished and trade was hence inevitable. However, given the possibility for imbalance and dispute, as regional populations grew and regional resources often became more scarce, a security and regulatory practice manifested to protect a community’s land, property, trade integrity and the like.
    The use of an “army”, which is sanctioned to protect by public decree, became standardized, along with an adjacent legal or regulatory authority complex, sanctioned to essentially give power to a set group of officials which facilitate such policy creation, enforcement, trials, punishment practices and the like.

    Bolding added.

    Bullshit.

    If you want a real understanding of the development of government, start with this paper.

    Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development
    Author(s): Mancur Olson
    Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 567-57
    http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf

  415. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Continuing on with Zeitgeist.

    The next step in this scaling process is the creation of a strategically automated industrial complex, localized as much as possible, which is designed to produce, through automated means, the average of everything any given region has found demand for. As will be described, this is very feasible given the current state of technology and the ephemeralization trends at hand.

    Bullshit.

    Consider for a moment how much storage space, transport energy, and overrun waste is eliminated by this approach if
    virtually everything could be created on-demand, done by automated systems which can continually produce a greater variety of goods, from increasingly smaller manufacturing configurations.

    Bullshit. Just wow, a complete and utter lack of comprehension of their subject matter. A big reason why goods are so cheap is the specialization of labor and the specialization of manufacturing facilities. Making manufacturing facilities more generalized is a great way to increase the labor cost, energy costs, and resource costs. The paper uses the example of paper printing and 3d printing. What the paper doesn’t understand is that 3d printing, compared to conventional production facilities, almost always has a higher energy cost and almost always produces a far inferior product with a shorter lifetime.

    Further, many kinds of production cannot be done at generalized production facilities. The classic example is the oft heard claim that 3d printers will eventually be able to print themselves. Utter horsehit. It might do ok with most of the parts, but it cannot do the circuit board. Creating circuit boards and especially microprocessors requires incredibly specific machinery, and the machinery is incredibly, incredibly expensive, by money count and by energy cost, to create and maintain. You cannot have a chip manufacturing facility in everyone’s back yard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication_plant

    Estimates put the cost of building a new fab over one billion U.S. dollars with values as high as $3–4 billion not being uncommon. TSMC invested $9.3 billion in its Fab15 300 mm wafer manufacturing facility in Taiwan.[1]

    Continuing on with Zeitgeist.

    For example, we see an airplane with two engines and both are needed to fly. Why not create an airplane with two main engines and two back-up engines, which are not running when the full plane is in working order, but in the event an engine fails, another engine is able to take over.

    I don’t even need to say anything to refute the paper on this point. I just have to quote it.

    Continuing on with Zeitgeist.

    The Political System

    I’ll spare you the quotes, but it seems that the paper is advocating a process analogous to open software design and maintenance for the design of all goods, and the approval of the design and creation of all goods. I think.

    The Zeitgeist paper does make-believe as if you can have an ownerless, leaderless design process, where everyone is free to contribute, and no one has more power than another. This is amazingly anti-reality if we want to talk about any real-world open softwware design process.

    I have a few friends and acquaintances on several ANSI and ISO software standard committees. The guy sitting here just to my left is on the ANSI and ISO Unicode working group. Further, I have some personal experience with this myself, (very slightly) working with the ANSI and ISO C++ committee, and seeing the process behind other projects like Boost and the Linux kernel. The Zeitgeist description simply does not map to reality.

    I think the Zeitgeist paper thinks that they can do away with voting and all government because their completely ridiculous idea of open design processes can replace voting and government. Seriously.

    At least the earlier paper I reviewed had a concrete plan that could be put into action which wouldn’t immediately fail – instead it would look like the Chinese communist party. This new paper is even more farther removed from reality. The Zeitgeist paper says voting and governments are not necessarily, because open design processes can replace it. No – I’m being serious here. That’s seemingly the position of the paper. Even if something like the system could be set up as if by magic, it would implode in a most spectacular fashion in a matter of days or weeks.

    The paper is seemingly light on substance because it seriously proposes we replace all forms of hierarchy, voting, government, etc., with open design committees and reviews, facilitated by online access, so anyone can participate.

    It is important to review why people can be so vicious today. Anger is bred by deprivation and some
    external act is often interpreted as the source of this abuse. So, in retribution, people today “hack” and violate websites and the like to either make a protest point or to get revenge.801 In a NLRBE, it is hard to fathom where the source of such angst and outrage would materialize. If a person doesn’t like the way the system is working in a specific way, they have the capacity to change it by assessing consensus with others. The system is emergent

    Just wow. I have no words.

    we also have the ability to structurally rationalize ourselves as being actually responsible to each other and the Earth itself.

    Fucking nature worship. Fuck that. The Earth is not sentient, and we have no responsibility to it whatsoever.

    Likewise, a common objection is that if goods were available without price, there is no restriction on taking vastly more than one needs. Once again, we need to consider the reason for such an action. Since the same goods cannot be sold, they would simply exist in another place, perhaps even inconveniencing the person who took them. What is one to do with, say, 200 televisions? Why would someone take five times the amount of food needed if they cannot eat it all and it will go to waste?

    Answer: To take over the world.

    No, I’m being serious here. That’s one reason they might do it. Acquire enough material in order to usurp the current order and become a dictator.

    Even in the case of “crimes of passion” or the like, the worst scenario is containment if the individual is unable to control destructive actions. Just as we might quarantine a person with a highly contagious, infectious disease if it were a serious threat, the logic to contain people who pose behavioral threats to others would suggest a similar scenario – only this containment would be humane and for the sake of research. Whether biological or developmental, all aberrant behaviors have a source of some kind and as complex as they may be, only further study can work to source solutions

    Aberrant? The fuck? Aberrant by what measure? By the measure of angels? Or evolved primates? It sure isn’t aberrant by the standard of evolved primates.

    Also, where’s my deterrence theory of justice? Arguably that’s the most important reason to have punishment of criminals. I don’t even see it being mentioned.

    However, in some cases, there might be a need for a type of rights system when dealing with accessed goods. In other words, a simple rule system of some kind might be useful, centered not on property rights but access rights.

    Imagine a scenario where an individual parks his or her bike on a street, without a lock, entering a house. This bike was checked out of a local distribution library for the person’s use. Then, a bystander, who is in a hurry, not close to a distribution library, sees this bike and makes an inappropriate decision to take the bike to get where he needs to go. This is a dishonest and rude act.

    In a property system, this would be called “theft”. In an access system it might take a different term, such as an “access violation”. The severity of the action is very different and it is more of an annoyance than a crime. In a property system the bike would likely be sold for money or kept. In an access system, the original user would simply obtain a new bike and move on, inconvenienced, while the person who took the bike would likely just drop it off after use, as there is no resale value and hence no real reason to keep it.

    Yet, it doesn’t mean the act should be ignored and go unnoticed in its access violation, as such behavior, as rare as it likely would be, would need acknowledgment to serve as a form of operant education. It is no different than how people today learn basic decency, respect and etiquette. Therefore, rather than property rights, a simple access rights rule could be installed to deter such behavior. In other words, any person obtaining items through the system would have access rights to those items for the duration of use and if another comes and takes those items, it is an offense. Reinforcement to deter such future acts would first be warnings. If persisted over time, it could mean a temporary limitation of future access in some genre for that offending person.

    Sorry for the long quote, but context is needed.

    I fail see a meaningful difference between “property rights” and “access rights”. This immediately reminded me of double speak.

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
    ACCESS RIGHTS ARE NOT PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Further, based on what I’ve read thus far, some reproduced here, I really think the Zeitgeist paper thinks that there is no such thing as a naturally malicious person or sadistic person and all such people are a product of the money market system. Or such people are “aberrant” and very rare, whatever the fuck that means. Or “mentally ill”. Right…

    As an aside, it also reminded me of the best piece of prose I have ever read from a fictional anti-property troll.

    Necessary context:
    This is a letter from one fictional character to another fictional character in a ficitonal world known as Dark Sun. Dark is what we call a crapsack world. Everything sucks. Food is scarce. There are evil magic users called defilers running around destroying the environment for powr and for the lulz. The halfling society in this world is rather unique, and entertaining. (I am looking forward to playing it out in my upcoming personal D&D campaign starting in a few weeks.)
    http://athas.org/articles/the-good-and-the-green

    Why do I post this? It has a eery similarly to the Zeitgeist movement on many factors. And because it’s funny.

    You should definitely read the section “Possessions and Ownership”. It uses the same language to describe property theft. It says it’s not property theft, but simple rudeness:

    Of course, if Kemender was using the crystal at the moment, then that would be different, it would be rude to simply take it. It would also be rude to take something that a person uses regularly, for instance my favorite sling. Another halfling would not take it without a very good reason or asking first.

    In the future, whenever someone mentions this bullshit Zeitgeist idea, I’m going to be reminded of the carnivorous Dark Sun halflings. Awesome!

    Continuing on with Zeitgeist.

    elegant, mold-extruded apartment complex that converts all sunlight into energy through photovoltaic paints on its outer shell.

    Fucking pipedreams, green worship, and nature worship.

    And I’m done. I was looking for a description of a proposed new political and economic system, and I found it. In response, I have no words to describe the level of foolishness and ignorance which it took to write the paper.

  416. projectp says

    you are funny. you get paid for trolling? I hope not because your attempt here just won’t work.
    you are a liar. I never stated that those plans were what i absolutely stand behind 100%.
    I said they were better and i still agree with that.

    You can continue calling names at this point I am getting a kick out you. you are panning out to be exactly who I have already described. The moderators are obviously watching because they have approved two of my post.
    I leave it up to them to judge your conduct from here on I out will try my best to ignore you and not fall for your lame attempts to troll me again.

  417. projectp says

    EL,

    I am glad you at least read it. I don’t agree with one word you have said and since you are not any sort of authority on social engineering I take your opinions on the subject with less than a grain of salt.
    None of what you said convinced me that anything proposed was in error.

    But you ARE entitled to your opinions. Thanks for reading it over. We can now agree to disagree.

  418. Monocle Smile says

    I am glad you at least read it. I don’t agree with one word you have said and since you are not any sort of authority on social engineering I take your opinions on the subject with less than a grain of salt

    And you accuse US of thestic thinking? There goes another irony meter. Jackass.

    you are a liar. I never stated that those plans were what i absolutely stand behind 100%

    No one gives a fucking shit. That’s not the standard of any rational person. You’re not funny, you’re not clever, and you’re not smart. You’re a borderline illiterate dumbass.

  419. Monocle Smile says

    Peter Joseph isn’t an authority on “social engineering,” either. He’s a turd of a filmmaker and that’s it. There’s something really fucking wrong with you.

  420. projectp says

    MS, come on man you are letting me down you have to be much angrier and sensationalthan that!
    I know you have in you. Just let it all out.

  421. Narf says

    @446 – PP

    … and since you are not any sort of authority on social engineering …

    Nor is the person who wrote it. Nor are you.

  422. projectp says

    Narf, I agree that I am not. But the people behind the project do have some expertise.
    But, what is more important to me is that I have investigated it and it makes sense to me VS what others have said.
    Give me a convincing argument otherwise and i will be forced to change my mind.
    People become convinced of things they do no choose to believe them as Matt D once said.

  423. projectp says

    Narf,

    I will also add that the work isn’t a creation of one man it is based on the works of many people.
    Mostly influenced by and built on ideas from. R. Buckminster Fuller, Jacque Fresco, Jeremy Rifkin, Ray Kurzweil, Robert Sapolsky, Thorstein Veblen, Richard Wilkinson, James Gilligan, Carl Sagan. And more.
    TZM isn’t something that just popped up out of nothing. There is a lot of required prerequisite work that made it possible.

  424. Monocle Smile says

    Mostly influenced by and built on ideas from. R. Buckminster Fuller, Jacque Fresco, Jeremy Rifkin, Ray Kurzweil, Robert Sapolsky, Thorstein Veblen, Richard Wilkinson, James Gilligan, Carl Sagan. And more

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Carl Sagan would have laughed his ass off at the Zeigeist nonsense.

    TZM isn’t something that just popped up out of nothing

    It looks exactly like every other conspiracy theory. Someone who has far too much time on their hands and selective comprehension cherry-picked a shit ton of information and fabricated the rest on the spot. None of the people you listed are actually affiliated with the “movement,” and it’s oddly hard to find names/professions of people “behind” the Zeitgeist nonsense. I mean, Peter Joseph isn’t even his legal name. He just goes by that because he thinks giving out his real name will get him assassinated by ninjas or something. Doesn’t that tell you something?

  425. projectp says

    Narf,

    There is a very interesting discussion between Lawrence Kraus and Noam Chomsky and a 1:11:32 Lawrence ask a very profound question based on a quote from Edward Bernays. That backs up what I was saying about the general public view being manipulated for the systems masters for advantage/profit of course.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml1G919Bts0

    It is a very good talk and there is a point where Kraus makes an observation about the argument from authority not really being that much of a fallacy. But the whole discussion is a great.

  426. Monocle Smile says

    You just don’t fucking get it. You can point out ALL THE PROBLEMS YOU WANT with the current system and it doesn’t lend one fuckshit of credence to Technocracy or the Zeitgeist bologna. Not one. Fuck the fuck off.

  427. projectp says

    keep trying MS. keep trying.. I am now totally resistant to your trolling. I look forward to actually 🙂

  428. Narf says

    He’s expressing what the rest of us are thinking, PP. He’s just doing it more emphatically.

    The way you say “built upon the ideas of …” is just a subtle attempt at an implied argument from authority of some sort. You can quote-mine the hell out of things that those people have said and then grab those statements and run straight into crazy-town. It might be impressive to those who don’t know any better, but to the rest of us, it just looks dishonest.

    I don’t even have to watch the most recent video you linked. Yes, there are people who are manipulating our economy to their own advantage. No shit. What the hell does that have to do with your argument? You’re still starting from nothing, after all of the bullshit you throw against our current system.

    What’s wrong with your comprehension? You’ve been told, I don’t know how many times, that you have to support your own damned position.

    The comparison to creationists is dead on. They do the exact same thing, throwing a lot of shit against evolution and every other modern scientific theory. Once they think they’ve completely dismantled evolution, they then hold up their creation myths as the only possible remaining idea, with no support to back it up. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

  429. projectp says

    You couldn’t be more wrong. Narf. You should look at the video, you might learn something.
    That is the difference between you and I, I watch something like that, and you watch SouthPark or StarTrek.

    You guys have bought into the establishment dogma and are completely fooled by it.
    If you guys are thinking that then you might as well say it. Why not be honest?

  430. Narf says

    You’re the only one here who doesn’t see what you’re doing, man. I can’t unfuck your head for you.

  431. projectp says

    “The way you say “built upon the ideas of …” is just a subtle attempt at an implied argument from authority of some sort. ”
    I have to say that this statement is particularly stupid. The fact is that TZM was built on the efforts and knowledge of the people listed. Thorstein Veblen was one of the founding members of Technocracy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen
    go to page then Ctrl+F and type in Technocracy.

    The appeal to authority if you would have listened to Kraus is not much of a fallacy.
    But you are too busy watching mind melting TV and afraid of anything that challenges your world view.

    If you think the same as the rest then we are finally done. UNLESS you come back here say some more stupid shit.

    I won’t let ignorant statements just stand.

  432. projectp says

    I also now realize that an establishment crackpot like you are the worst of them all. Brainwashed beyond all hope without the ability to think freely. You head is so clogged with bad programming that it would take a complete breakdown for you to ever make it back to sanity.

  433. projectp says

    The comparison to creationism must be addressed. This is the dumbest one.
    I am not making an appeal to a make believe god. The appeal is to Technology and what CAN be done with it.
    It is REAL not imagined. Narf you are daft.

  434. Chikoppi says

    projectp, although this is an atheist board many people here also identify as skeptics, which is another term for someone concerned with epistemology. That is, the study of the criteria by which “knowledge” can said to have been established.
    .
    For skeptics, the quality of the criteria used to make a claim is the determining factor in how likely it is that a claim is true. There are many different criteria that can be used to establish a claim. For instance, has the claim been tested through rigorous methods of research, can that research be reliably replicated, does the person making the claim has a history of accomplishment in the relevant field(s), does the claim rely upon or contradict previously established theories, etc.
    .
    Maybe you could share the criteria you used when evaluating your claim. Without discussing the claim itself, describe the types of criteria that you think the claim satisfies and that make it seem convincing to you.

  435. Monocle Smile says

    Thorstein Veblen was one of the founding members of Technocracy

    Lolwut?

    [Howard] Scott, who listed Veblen as on the temporary organizing committee of the Technical Alliance, perhaps without consulting Veblen or other listed members, later helped found the Technocracy movement

    You can’t even read properly, you fuck.

    Also, Veblen died forty years before Hardin wrote about the tragedy of the commons, which is a dagger in the heart of Tech-crock-of-shit. You’re fixated on this myth of “abundance” and you’re under the impression that every detrimental human behavior is driven by the current system and can be “fixed.” It’s juvenile and fucktarded.

  436. projectp says

    Another part of your analogy that is so goddamn assinine is the part where you say that i am saying the price system doesn’t work so therefore my plan does! Insane…. Never said that!

    My contention is that the price system is at odds with Technology and progress so it needs to be replaced, Here is a system that can replace it. You are so goddamn daft….

    You can’t even get my position right in ONE way, you made SEVERAL errors and I don’t think they are intentional. You are just that fucking stupid.

  437. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I am glad you at least read it. I don’t agree with one word you have said and since you are not any sort of authority on social engineering I take your opinions on the subject with less than a grain of salt.

    Really? Everything I wrote?

    Including the bit about the claim that a nuclear plant accident in Japan could cause dangerous fallout to hit the US? That claim is objectively and undeniably false. The Fukushima earthquake and nuclear accident provides conclusive, irrefutable proof. IIRC, my friend who works in the U of M hospital lab might have had access to equipment sensitive enough to detect the “fallout” from Fukushima, but to insinuate that it’s dangerous in any way is sheer absurdity – contrary to mountains of available evidence.

    Or about the purported historical account of the origin of armies. It claims that it was by consent of the people. Bull fucking shit. The idea of consent of the governed is a rather new and novel idea in western philosophy, first put into practice on the large scale in 1776 in what we call the United States. Armies existed long before that, such as the redcoats, and those armies sure as hell didn’t exist by consent of the people, because the government did not ask the people for consent, because all western governments of the modern era before the United States were tyrannies, mostly kingdoms run by a king who claimed the divine right of kings.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

    Some degree of reform was already happening in England, particularly the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and even going back to the Magna Carta of 1215. However, I stand by my understanding that the United States is the first modern large-scale western government which purports to run on the consent of the governed, and to the best degree possible at the time runs on the consent of the governed.

    Perhaps you meant “I don’t agree with one word you have said” as a humorous exaggeration. If so, sorry, but I am not mindreader, and I can only reply to what you actually say, not to what you mean to say.

  438. projectp says

    Chikoppi,

    I don’t need to prove something like this to know it would work better, it isn’t hard to work it out.
    Narf and MS are NOT skeptics. They are arguing against positions I don’t have making erroneous comparisons.
    You can not be skeptical of something you obviously don’t get. I mean the comparison with theist arguments was so bad that I just blew it off at first thinking “he doesn’t believe that”. Then i realized he did…. the complete stupidity is mind boggling.

  439. Monocle Smile says

    I don’t need to prove something like this to know it would work better, it isn’t hard to work it out

    At every turn, you spout off conspiracy theorist thinking. This is exactly how Truthers think, how chemtrail people think, how NWO monkeys think, how UFO dumbasses think. Narf’s right; we can’t unfuck your head.

  440. Chikoppi says

    I don’t need to prove something like this to know it would work better, it isn’t hard to work it out.

    I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m suggesting it would be helpful for you to describe the types of criteria you are using to establish your degree of confidence.

  441. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I just realized something. The second paper isn’t advocating a particular style of government. The second paper is advocating a lack of government, and that “design committees” will spontaneously arise from the personal interactions of people working through the internet. By this process, all governmental functions will be handled, including the police, fire, army, etc.

    I realize now that this is not a model of government. This organization of society, this plan of government – lack of a plan I should say – is literally the textbook definition of anarchy. The actual plan is identical to the stereotypical anarcho-libertarian. The only difference is the wildly unevidenced assertion that outside of a capitalist economy, humans will behave much much better, and effectively they will operate like angels.

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. – James Madison in The Federalist

    This crackpot actually thinks that people are innately genuinely nice to such a strong degree that government isn’t necessary. Wow. I just realized I’m dealing with an honest-to-goodness anarchist. Like, not one of those strong libertarians who make exceptions for police and courts, but an honest-to-goodness anarchist. I suppose we’ve had a couple of real anarchists on the show and on the blog comments before, but they all were the selfish variety. We might have an honest-to-goodness empathic and caring anarchist who cares about the well-being of other people. It’s just that the relevant positions of this person, and the entire Zeitgeist paper, is completely detached from reality.

  442. projectp says

    Chikoppi ,

    I have watched and read a lot, it would be very hard to articulate exact things but it is the amalgamation of all that information. I read the entire Technocracy study course in my 20’s Seen many documentaries read many books.

    Videos like the one at 456 between Noam Chomsky and Lawerence Kraus.

    So after taking all that in I have been convinced. Probably thousands of hours of information.

  443. projectp says

    EL I have been called a lot of things except Conservative and Anarchist. Most of the time Liberal.
    But I don’t identify with any of those labels.

  444. projectp says

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. – James Madison in The Federalist”

    That observation was made by someone in a system that creates “devils”.

  445. Monocle Smile says

    That observation was made by someone in a system that creates “devils”

    The Founding Fathers were fairly radical socialists by today’s standards, and in addition, this is the dumbest poisoning-the-well fallacy you could have possibly made.

  446. projectp says

    EL,

    You are in a group of people who agree with you now, if you went to another forum you could easily be in the minority.
    None of you should think that you are right just because you have a bunch of bobbing heads around you.
    Your arrogance is foolish.

  447. Narf says

    *sigh*
    Okay, and he’s now progressed to the point of being a content-less troll … has been one for a good long time, it could be argued. I’m gonna stop paying attention to this post, I think, guys. I’ll catch you in other posts that don’t have this asshole in them.

  448. Chikoppi says

    I have watched and read a lot, it would be very hard to articulate exact things but it is the amalgamation of all that information.

    You understand why this is problematic, right? Imagine someone said the following to you:
    .
    “Homeopathy is total true and we should outlaw all of western medicine and replace it with homeopathic treatment centers. I know this is true because I’ve spent thousands of hours reading about it. If you look at the material and don’t agree it’s only because you don’t understand it the way that I do.”
    .
    You’d probably be skeptical and ask for something more substantial. Have controlled tests demonstrated homeopathy to perform better than western medicine? Do the majority of experts agree with this position? Is there any situation in which homeopathy has been independently verified to produce the results you claim it does? Etc.
    .
    You would neither be unreasonable in asking these questions nor in witholding your acceptance of the claim until a more substantial argument was presented.

  449. projectp says

    Chikoppi,

    let’s rephrase it…

    “western medicine is totally true and we should outlaw all of Homeopathy and replace it with western treatment centers. I know this is true because I’ve spent thousands of hours reading about it. If you look at the material and don’t agree it’s only because you don’t understand it the way that I do.”

    Now this statement is True. Western medicine is better than homeopathy or any other woowoo.
    How would you know that. Well reading/studying etc. so your example just sounds like a garbled bunch of junk to me.

    You are a nice guy. I came back just to check if you did say something and make sure i replied.
    I figured out how to unsubscribe from the blog. Now my phone doesn’t beep everytime a new post comes in here.

    The current system is outdated and will never work with technology, it will continue to work against it.
    We need one that accepts that machines will replace human labor and doesn’t require human labor for income.
    One that is not dependent on growth and that coincides with the natural resources of the planet.
    I found one, you don’t agree or are not convinced. that’s ok, things are not going to change next week.
    We will have to agree to disagree and move on.

  450. Monocle Smile says

    Now this statement is True. Western medicine is better than homeopathy or any other woowoo.
    How would you know that. Well reading/studying etc

    No, fuckface. That’s a child’s answer and that doesn’t tell you anything.

    We need one that accepts that machines will replace human labor and doesn’t require human labor for income.
    One that is not dependent on growth and that coincides with the natural resources of the planet

    And I want a wizard staff. Sorry, magic is magic. You need to learn how humans work, because you’re woefully uneducated on this topic and pretty much all others.

  451. Chikoppi says

    “western medicine is totally true and we should outlaw all of Homeopathy and replace it with western treatment centers. I know this is true because I’ve spent thousands of hours reading about it. If you look at the material and don’t agree it’s only because you don’t understand it the way that I do.”

    Except that unlike homeopathy, western medicine is not based merely on theory. I know western medicine is true because of clinical studies, it’s science-based. Before a procedure or drug can be approved it undergoes extensive controlled testing. The results are published so that independent parties can evaluate the testing methods and replicate the tests to verify that the results are consistent.
    .
    Western medicine works because it meets an objective set of criteria to establish its efficacy. It is the quality of the criteria that separates belief in western medicine from belief in homeopathy.
    .
    When homeopathy is subjected to the same criteria it fails. That is why the contrasting beliefs are not equivalent.
    .
    If you want others to consider your proposals seriously you are going to have to first establish the criteria by which the proposal will be judged and then present the evidence. The more robust your criteria, the stronger your position will become.

  452. projectp says

    Chikoppi,

    Arg… I knew you would say that. I already mentioned that system can not be tested. The requirements are too large. That’s why I had hoped you watched the talk with Lawrence Kraus.

    Kraus and Chomsky, talk about the beginnings of physics, Galileo had a hard time convincing the aristocrats (funders) that it made sense to study something like a ball rolling down a frictionless plane. Something that does not exist in nature. He said that it took a long time for the scientific world to realise that they would have to study highly abstract idealised models.

    Which is what the RBE is. It can not be tested in the real world because of the vast amount of resources needed to actually test it. Anyway, most of these questions are answered in the FAQ on the links I already gave. Can’t we just agree to disagree? I really feel like I have wasted too much of my time here with people who really don’t give a shit about the world and have no interest in improving it. They just want to sit up on their high horse and talk down to Theist.
    Not much of a challenge either. or other crazy beliefs like NWO, chem trails, UFO’s, Astral projection.

    I want a system as stated @ 481.. which you glared over…. But don’t address it please. I am going to do my best to resist the urge to come back here. My girlfriend is saying, well I better not say….

  453. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    a ball rolling down a frictionless plane.

    If there is no friction, the ball would slide downhill, not roll. Balls only roll because of friction with the surface.

    Can’t we just agree to disagree?

    What does that even mean? Do you want us to stop attacking your ideas and to respect your ideas? Not a chance as long as you keep promting them here. If you don’t like it, stop talking about it. Or leave – I think the rest of us would appreciate that. Note that in the many years I’ve been here, I’ve only even suggested that someone leave or be banned once before. You make number 2.

  454. kudlak says

    @Narf
    Yeah, I was referring to PP’s mention of Zeitgeist and I blame myself for wasting all that time talking to the guy as if he had a serious subject to discuss. There was something about his first couple of posts that set my Spidey sense a-tingling, but I just ignored it. This tread was a total waste of time.

    The last thing I noticed was that Technocracy Inc. has an online store where they will gladly sell you their overpriced materials for cash. Funny that they can’t produce these materials cheaply enough to just give them away, eh?

  455. frankgturner says

    @ Chikoppi # 483
    Actuallly the way you use the word “theory” when you discuss western medicine being based not purely upon theory is the way many a scientist would use the word “hypothesis.” That has been discussed on boards here many times, how the word theory the way the common person uses it is more akin to the way hard scientists use the word hypothesis. Theories in the scientific world are based upon facts.
    .
    I personally don’t like the word “truth” or what is “true” either as I make a distinction between a broader idea of “truth,” which can be akin to good advice or philosophical ideas that are not measurable and things that are “factually correct” and can be observed and demonstrated and repeated. I personally wish that people would use the words “factually correct” in place of “true” when they indicate something that is observable and repeatable.
    .
    To everyone else but especially pp. I was reluctant to get involved in this part of the conversation as I have been reading this for a while and still think that there is a major miscommunication here. I would think that I am considered one of the gentler and less incited to flaming and being patient with people based on what others have said to me on here.
    .
    Projectp, I do thing that what you are proposing could work, I emphasize the word COULD as I would need to see some evidence of it actually having worked or currently working. That is a big part of what skepticism is about, reserving judgement until you have hard evidence. You have an interesting hypothesis, and there may even be some factual information to back up the hypothesis. I don’t know if it could graduate to a “theory” in the scientific sense as I am not an economist or a sociologist. I would hope that it would be reviewed by those with a background in sociology who have a better understanding of the facts and norms of sociology in order to gain acceptance as a possibility.
    .
    That is where I think your appeal to authority came up before and why people considered it a fallacy. Let me see if I can sum up what you were saying with a short analogy. If Robert Price made the claim that Mary Magdelene had been a man making a case for women’s rights by pretending to be female and intelligent I would be a lot more willing to listen to him lecture on this than I would Lawrence Kraus. Similarly, if Kraus made a claim that the vibrations of the Higgs plane would result in creations of mass for physical particle I would be a lot more willing to listen to Kraus give said lecture than I would Price. Their studies in said fields that relate would lead me to trust that they did the appropriate research to make said claims. However, their authority in that field would NOT lead me to believe that they are correct in said claims simply because they study that area. Their authority from studying said fields of theology and physics would lead me to trust them to understand and communicate the facts and evidence from said field and to support their conclusions with evidence and logical reasoning.
    .
    They would STILL need to have evidence and logical reasoning behind their conclusions for me to consider what they were claiming to be true both factually and philosophically. If Price said that he knew Mary Magdelene was actually a man and that his authority as a theologian made him correct I would think he was a loony and I would consider him to be making a logically fallacy of an appeal to authority. Since you mention Galileo I point out Newton who was a brilliant physicist far ahead of his time. A lot of his work lead to demonstrable, repeatable, observable evidence (as did much of Galileo’s). And as a scientist who realizes that there are overlaps between the fields I likely would have trusted him to produce good work with respect to chemistry and would have been likely willing to listen to a lecture of newton;s on chemical properties had I lived at the time. However, I probably would have considered him to be an idiot with respect to chemistry given some of the things Newton claimed that were demonstrably false (factually INcorrect in this case) with respect to chemistry.
    .
    Having authority does not make you credible by virtue of said authority. Having demonstrable evidence that is repeatable and logical conclusions from those demonstrable facts. Authority gives others a sense of trust that you will use facts and demonstrable evidence to make logical conclusions based upon your area of authority, but that trust can be shattered.
    .
    That is expected within the scientific community, if you are going to make a claim have something, factual evidence. And you are expected to submit your work to your peers for them to criticize and look for flaws in your reasoning. That is called “peer review.” If as an economist (your area of expertise?) and/or a sociologist you have ideas that you think hold water you submit them to individuals in said field with regards to the way our economic system works then submit your ideas to them. See if they as experts in said field can pick it apart and be opened to criticism. You may have to adjust your hypothesis if you see parts of it not gelling with observations. that is normal. Once it holds water then you present it.
    .
    I am not an economist or a sociologist. As a scientist though I have seen that in order to establish causation you have to control the environment and limit the variablility to one variable so you can see the observed changes to determine that the change of a particular variable is what causes said observation. Economics is a highly varied field with a number of potential causes and effects so it could be hard to determine what is causing a system to actually “work.”
    .
    I am not saying that you might not have a good idea. You might very well. However, the rule of skepticism is to reserve judgement of the positive claim until it can be proven with hard evidence. Not everything can be proven with having direct observation, but some sort of observable physical evidence is expected. If you can’t produce that then expect criticism. Good ideas can stand up to criticism.
    .
    Do you get me?

  456. projectp says

    Frank thanks for your post. As i said above. I am done here. This doesnt appear to be a place that is condusive to meaningful discussion. Wish you could have posted Sooner. But your inhibitions were well founded. Maybe on another forum. As noted above i am unsuunsubscribed from this blog.

  457. Narf says

    It’s very conducive to a meaningful discussion. You just didn’t engage with particularly honest discussion.