Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

Papashlapa · Sep 15, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
When you put minds to solving these problems without the end goal being "to make as much profit as possible" you get amazing results.

I thought you didn't vilify profit? Do you know what profit is? It's the reward for an individual or a firm finding a way to create more value from less value. Taking X amount of resources as an input, and creating Y amount of resources as an output, where Y > X. That's what profit is, plain and simple.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Our most limited resources will be put to the best use they can to improve the quality of life for the greatest number of people. This can be objectively determined through scientific analysis and can be further refined as those who choose to study resource consumption get new ideas (which would then be considered by other experts who work together to get the best possible result instead of competing against each other for a bigger piece of the pie).

Seriously man, read that again. Why will our most limited resources be put to the best use? Who's going to decide what the "best use" is? How do you know they're telling the truth, and not abusing the power you're giving them for their own gain? What incentives do those people have to use those resources to "improve the quality of life for the largest number of people"? Are we just relying on their good spirit and love of their fellow man to make sure they do what's best for the community?Has that EVER worked?

Objective scientific analysis? Do you know how much work it takes to do proper scientific research? You're going to use "objective scientific research" to decide the production and allocation of every single thing in the economy? Do you have any idea how many different goods there are in any given modern economy? There's millions upon millions of decisions that need to be made EVERY DAY about production and allocation of resources, reacting to variables that are all changing constantly. It's completely outside the realm of possibility to actively manage the economy on that level. Even if every single person on the planet had a Ph.D. and was doing "objective scientific research", and even if we assumed they all were perfectly altruistic angels just trying to make the world a better place (hint: they're not), you still couldn't process that level of information and make informed decisions.

Think about how much goes in to these decisions every day right now. How much steel should be producing? How much of it goes to make cars, how much to make knives, how much to make steel beams for buildings? How many buildings do we need? Where do we need them? Who's going to build them? What kind of tools do they need? Who's going to make the tools? What are the tools made of? Who decides whether we use a 12V battery of an 8V battery? How many feet per floor on this building? What about the copper wiring? Do the suites need space for internet wiring? Where does it go?

Seriously dude, think about the magnitude of the decision making process in a modern economy. It's fucking unfathomably large. No central authority can possibly hope to manage it efficiently, EVEN IF you just assume away human nature and pretend they would be motivated to do what's "right".

Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm not suggesting providing an infinite supply of anything to anyone because that's retarded. But a lot of worries about limited resources would become moot once we use science and technology to figure out alternatives. Unlike with Capitalism, where we're actively burning through as many non-renewable resources as we possibly can. You're going to tell me what we're doing now is more responsible?

Take oil. We remain super-dependent on it even though we cannot produce more of it and it will certainly run out at some point. Is it because we have no choice? Fuck no! It's because there's too much money in it. We don't need oil to power vehicles or provide heat for homes or even produce plastic. There are less harmful, less wasteful and more responsible alternatives for all these uses of oil. The chances of society taking a huge punch to the gut once oil runs out are far higher under Capitalism than they would be under the Venus Project, so don't tell me money is balancing out resource consumption.

Worries about limited resources will NEVER become moot, because there will always be less resources available than people want to use. No matter how much more productive we become, it's human nature to want more. It's commonly referred to as the fundamental problem of Economics. Human wants are always larger than available resources, so some form of rationing must exist. You keep railing against money as if it's the root of all evil, but money is nothing, it's an illusion. Money has no inherent value. It's only value is in what you can trade it for. It's a unit of measurement, a store of value, out of convenience.

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economic concepts. Pick up a basic economics book and just try to read it with no preconceived notions.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 15, 2013

oh man...

Papashlapa_sl said:
You have a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economic concepts. Pick up a basic economics book and just try to read it with no preconceived notions.

my world changed when my friends told me to pursue that route.
never been the same. felt like i got indoctrinated by the liberal faggot professors, telling me about social injustices and inequality and that somehow means i gotta do something.

life got good.

mmm not the way they want it.

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2013

(Spoilered for size)

khalid_sl said:
I don't have any illusions that you will listen to any of this but you should read less Marx and more economic textbooks. You can't just "wish away" the value of things. Even if you took away money, you wouldn't end up with all things being equal. We use oil because it is easier to use than other alternatives, not because money somehow forces us to use oil.

I've already told you I've never read Marx. Please don't make me repeat myself, I do enough of that with my grade 1 students. The "value" of things? What the hell determines the "value" of things? Demand? Demand is influenced by marketing, which is another way of saying deciding what people want then convincing them that they want it. There is no "value" without an environment to decide what that value is. And no, we don't use oil "because it's easier". We use oil because it's been established that that's the way things are done and it would ruffle too many feathers to do otherwise. Explain to me why we aren't using hemp for its multitude of efficient, productive uses. Is it because it's too difficult? Of course not! It's incredibly easy to manufacture. Easier than growing trees. Easier than drilling for oil. The only reason is money.

khalid_sl said:
What do you mean, nobody says "I want helium" for the sake of having it? People do that shit all the time with resources. Hell, inventors might want it to try and create some things. Many people would want it to sound funny, etc. How do you go about determining who should get what? Surely you don't want some pie in the sky technocracy to determine it, that has failed everytime we have tried it. Surely not!

Yeah, I think we could accommodate inventors. We could probably accommodate people who want to make their voices sound funny too, although if that put too much of a strain on the amount of available helium I have little doubt we could find an alternative way to tense one's vocal cords (if we haven't already) such as using a synthetically created gas or simply digital manipulation. Besides, under this system it's "Sorry guys, we've only got so much helium so we need to make it last and make sure we use it wisely." Under Capitalism it's "Sorry guys, we've only got so much helium so only the rich guys are gonna get it." I know which sounds better to me.

khalid_sl said:
Man, I love science and scientists but you are actually advocating a technocracy dictatorship. Unreal. "Once we use science and technology to figure out alternatives". We are ALREADY DOING THAT, what you are essentially advocating is something entirely different.

Yeah, to a certain extent we're already doing that. We're also actively stifling that. We're way behind on electric, emission-free cars because it's only once it became a commercially profitable endeavor that it was allowed to develop at all. I'll mention hemp again, as that's another area where we're years and years behind where we should be, not based on its potential uses but on what we already know it can be used for but aren't. Apparently many of you guys consider the way money holds us back as an acceptable side effect of Capitalism. I don't.

Your last paragraph was garbage and not worth responding to.

I don't think I've asked you specifically yet: Can we do better as a species? Why aren't we? (Everybody's apparently terrified of these questions. I have yet to get a single response.)

khalid · Sep 15, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Your last paragraph was garbage and not worth responding to.

Okay, so let me repost it again so you can tell me what's garbage about it.

Again, we use oil because it takes far less RESOURCES to use it than other alternatives. You can wish away cash, you can't wish away actual value. People want varying amounts of resources, capitalism and price give us a way, albeit unfairly in many cases, to allocate the resources. You want to live in some world where everything is the same value and people can just ask for whatever they want. That never works, hasn't worked and won't work with current humans.

Essentially, none of your ideas work until we reach some technological singularity.

That isn't garbage, its FACT. You cannot just wish away the value of things or the scarcity of some resources compared to their demand. Until you get past that basic fact, it doesn't matter what pie in the sky ideas you come up with. Money is only a measure of somethings value, it isn't the devil. If you got rid of money and banned it, people would still use barter. The only way to wish away those things is to wait for a technological singularity where we are all sitting at home with full mass replicators. Societies that have tried to wish these things away have failed horribly.

Tanoomba_sl said:
I don't think I've asked you specifically yet: Can we do better as a species? Why aren't we? (Everybody's apparently terrified of these questions. I have yet to get a single response.)[/spoiler]

Nobody is scared to answer, you just ignore the answers. We can do better as a species by reforming capitalism. We cannot do better as a species by throwing away the only system we know works to harness human nature into productivity.

edit

ops

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 15, 2013

did a paper on alternative energy resources.

can confirm oil is the best thing out there.

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2013

(Spoilered for size)

Papashlapa_sl said:
I thought you didn't vilify profit? Do you know what profit is? It's the reward for an individual or a firm finding a way to create more value from less value. Taking X amount of resources as an input, and creating Y amount of resources as an output, where Y > X. That's what profit is, plain and simple.

Sorry, I should have specified "monetary profit". For the record, every single time I mention profit, I mean "monetary profit" (like almost every other person in the world who uses the word).

Papashlapa_sl said:
Seriously man, read that again. Why will our most limited resources be put to the best use? Who's going to decide what the "best use" is? How do you know they're telling the truth, and not abusing the power you're giving them for their own gain? What incentives do those people have to use those resources to "improve the quality of life for the largest number of people"? Are we just relying on their good spirit and love of their fellow man to make sure they do what's best for the community?Has that EVER worked?

The scientific method will decide what the "best use" is. We trust the scientific method with our lives every second of every day, but you won't trust it to manage resources? The reason people wouldn't "abuse their power for their own gain" is because there would be nothing to gain. It's very difficult for a lot of people to get their highly conditioned minds around, but when everyone has their basic needs and wants met, there is no need to "possess" anything. You don't have to cheat anyone out of anything because you already have what you need. And if, by some chance, some asshole just wants to fuck with everyone and fake some test results, well then his peers who actually give a shit about doing a good job will catch that before it has an effect on anything or anyone.

Papashlapa_sl said:
Objective scientific analysis? Do you know how much work it takes to do proper scientific research? You're going to use "objective scientific research" to decide the production and allocation of every single thing in the economy? Do you have any idea how many different goods there are in any given modern economy? There's millions upon millions of decisions that need to be made EVERY DAY about production and allocation of resources, reacting to variables that are all changing constantly. It's completely outside the realm of possibility to actively manage the economy on that level. Even if every single person on the planet had a Ph.D. and was doing "objective scientific research", and even if we assumed they all were perfectly altruistic angels just trying to make the world a better place (hint: they're not), you still couldn't process that level of information and make informed decisions.

If we don't need people working in factories or MacDonald's or paving our roads (remember, one of the goals of the Venus Project is to replace manual labor to the greatest extent possible) then scientific research because an extremely popular field for people to express an interest in. Besides, it doesn't matter how much "work" it is. It's work that's being done now, inefficiently and with the best interests of rich people in mind. We can continue to do the same amount of work, but take politics and money out of it. As far as I'm concerned that makes things a lot easier, not harder.

Papashlapa_sl said:
Think about how much goes in to these decisions every day right now. How much steel should be producing? How much of it goes to make cars, how much to make knives, how much to make steel beams for buildings? How many buildings do we need? Where do we need them? Who's going to build them? What kind of tools do they need? Who's going to make the tools? What are the tools made of? Who decides whether we use a 12V battery of an 8V battery? How many feet per floor on this building? What about the copper wiring? Do the suites need space for internet wiring? Where does it go?

Those are all decisions being made already, inefficiently and with the best interests of rich people in mind.

Papashlapa_sl said:
Seriously dude, think about the magnitude of the decision making process in a modern economy. It's fucking unfathomably large. No central authority can possibly hope to manage it efficiently, EVEN IF you just assume away human nature and pretend they would be motivated to do what's "right".

Who said "central authority"? I said technology and scientific method.

Papashlapa_sl said:
Worries about limited resources will NEVER become moot, because there will always be less resources available than people want to use. No matter how much more productive we become, it's human nature to want more. It's commonly referred to as the fundamental problem of Economics. Human wants are always larger than available resources, so some form of rationing must exist. You keep railing against money as if it's the root of all evil, but money is nothing, it's an illusion. Money has no inherent value. It's only value is in what you can trade it for. It's a unit of measurement, a store of value, out of convenience.

Human "wants" are based on the idea that we have to own things to appreciate them. Owning things adds value to our lives and gives us pleasure. If the things you need are provided to you and the things you want are always available, then the very act of "owning" something becomes obsolete. The fundamental problem of Economics only applies in a competitive, ownership-based wealth system.

Papashlapa_sl said:
You have a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economic concepts. Pick up a basic economics book and just try to read it with no preconceived notions.

If I do, will you read up on the Venus Project?

khalid · Sep 15, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
If I do, will you read up on the Venus Project?

All someone has to know about the Venus Project is this...

Jacque Fresco_sl said:
Fresco's system is based on the idea that the earth is abundant with plentiful resources but that our current practice of what he calls 'rationing' resources through monetary methods or a price system method is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

So as we said, and you dismissed as ridiculous, ideas like that only work if you can wish away scarcity. The Venus Project sounds like a great thing to talk about after some sort of technological singularity where we are all sitting around with mass replicators.

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2013

khalid_sl said:
Okay, so let me repost it again so you can tell me what's garbage about it.

Again, we use oil because it takes far less RESOURCES to use it than other alternatives. You can wish away cash, you can't wish away actual value. People want varying amounts of resources, capitalism and price give us a way, albeit unfairly in many cases, to allocate the resources. You want to live in some world where everything is the same value and people can just ask for whatever they want. That never works, hasn't worked and won't work with current humans.

Essentially, none of your ideas work until we reach some technological singularity.

That isn't garbage, its FACT. You cannot just wish away the value of things or the scarcity of some resources compared to their demand. Until you get past that basic fact, it doesn't matter what pie in the sky ideas you come up with. Money is only a measure of somethings value, it isn't the devil. If you got rid of money and banned it, people would still use barter. The only way to wish away those things is to wait for a technological singularity where we are all sitting at home with full mass replicators. Societies that have tried to wish these things away have failed horribly.

I addressed "value" already. People "want" what their environment tells them they want, and even then the concept of "wanting" is closely linked to the concept of "owning", which is obsolete in the Venus Project. You don't have to barter because there's nothing you need to own. No singularity needed, thank you very much.

khalid_sl said:
Nobody is scared to answer, you just ignore the answers. We can do better as a species by reforming capitalism. We cannot do better as a species by throwing away the only system we know works to harness human nature into productivity.

edit

ops

Dude, you still didn't answer. If we can do better, WHY AREN'T WE?

khalid · Sep 15, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
People "want" what their environment tells them they want, and even then the concept of "wanting" is closely linked to the concept of "owning", which is obsolete in the Venus Project. You don't have to barter because there's nothing you need to own.

Yeah, communism has tried that before. Doesn't work.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Dude, you still didn't answer. If we can do better, WHY AREN'T WE?

We are doing better, the world is a better place than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago. Part of the problem though, is people like you that talk about pie-in-the-sky Venus project stuff that completely isn't practical versus talking about trying to deal with wealth inequality. Stop trying to fight human nature (yeah yeah, I know you don't think human nature is the way it is) and work with it.

hodj · Sep 15, 2013

khalid_sl said:
the world is a better place than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago.

Let's not go overboard here. There's no way the world today is better than the world in 1993-99.

Just not possible.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 15, 2013

MORE JOBS MAN MORE JOBS.

Papashlapa · Sep 15, 2013

(Spoilered for size)

Tanoomba_sl said:
Sorry, I should have specified "monetary profit". For the record, every single time I mention profit, I mean "monetary profit" (like almost every other person in the world who uses the word).

I was also speaking of monetary profit.

Tanoomba_sl said:
The scientific method will decide what the "best use" is. We trust the scientific method with our lives every second of every day, but you won't trust it to manage resources? The reason people wouldn't "abuse their power for their own gain" is because there would be nothing to gain. It's very difficult for a lot of people to get their highly conditioned minds around, but when everyone has their basic needs and wants met, there is no need to "possess" anything. You don't have to cheat anyone out of anything because you already have what you need. And if, by some chance, some asshole just wants to fuck with everyone and fake some test results, well then his peers who actually give a shit about doing a good job will catch that before it has an effect on anything or anyone.

If that were true, the very same evil rich capitalists you claim are exploiting society for their own massive profits wouldn't exist. They have their basic needs met, and then some, yet still apparently need to claim more and more, right? You just assume all the peers will give a shit about doing a good job, they'll all get personal satisfaction from doing a good job. I'm sure some of them will, but lots of them won't, and the system will be broken. Now you'll have an unelected, unaccountable nobility making all the decisions for society, and to make matters worse you've completely destroyed the concept of private property, which in actual effect means the nobility owns everything and you'd better be thankful for the scraps they give you.

And seriously, how is the scientific method going to decide exactly how much steel to produce, where to produce it, who's going to produce it, where it's going to be shipped, what it's going to be used for, the methods for producing it, etc., but multiplied for the millions of different goods required? I think you have a real misunderstanding of how the scientific method works, which is sad, because the scientific method is FANTASTIC, but you're trying to use it for things it doesn't do well. What's that old saying? When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Tanoomba_sl said:
If we don't need people working in factories or MacDonald's or paving our roads (remember, one of the goals of the Venus Project is to replace manual labor to the greatest extent possible) then scientific research because an extremely popular field for people to express an interest in.

Why do we all of a sudden not need people paving roads or working at McDonald's? Are we just going to wave a magic wand? Or are we going to use technology to develop robots to do this for us? If so, why aren't we doing that now? I'll tell you why. It costs more resources to develop those technologies than the benefit they would convey, that's why they're unprofitable and no one's doing it. That doesn't mean it will never happen, we're just not there yet, and as soon as we are ready I can guarantee some greedy capitalist is going to jump on that shit because it lets him beat his competition and increase market share and profits.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Besides, it doesn't matter how much "work" it is. It's work that's being done now, inefficiently and with the best interests of rich people in mind. We can continue to do the same amount of work, but take politics and money out of it. As far as I'm concerned that makes things a lot easier, not harder.

How do you not see the difference between individuals separately making millions of decisions and some unelected technocracy centrally managing these decisions. See, when a good becomes more scarce, prices rise, and people have every incentive to reduce their consumption of that good. Nobody needs to know why they're using less of it, nobody needs to read a report detailing current production levels or current reserves of that good, all they need to know is it's more expensive and they'll choose ALL ON THEIR OWN to use less of it. The centralization of decision making leads to inefficiency because knowledge is diffused widely among millions of people, and the decentralized system aggregates the decisions of those people (thanks Hayek!).

Tanoomba_sl said:
Who said "central authority"? I said technology and scientific method.

Technology and the scientific method can't make decisions. Only people can make decisions. Technology and the scientific method are tools people use to assist them. At the end of the day, the system you and the Venus Project are proposing is one where there's some central authority managing how resources are allocated. The only difference between the Venus Project and the Soviet Union is you think making technocrats run it will have better results. Here's the problem. The Soviet Union didn't fail because it was run by the wrong people, it failed because any system that requires the right people running it to function will fail.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Human "wants" are based on the idea that we have to own things to appreciate them. Owning things adds value to our lives and gives us pleasure. If the things you need are provided to you and the things you want are always available, then the very act of "owning" something becomes obsolete. The fundamental problem of Economics only applies in a competitive, ownership-based wealth system.

If there's no private property, if the product of your labour doesn't belong to you, than it belongs to society, and you are a slave to that society. When that happens, the very same people that would be captains of industry in today's society instead become captains of the bureaucracy, but now theyliterally own you. That's the death of all human freedom and prosperity.

Tanoomba_sl said:
If I do, will you read up on the Venus Project?

I already have. If you want a good book to start with:

Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson
Simple, easy to read, no graphs or anything, just an explanation of basic concepts and a dismantling of various economic fallacies. One of the first books related to econ I read and it's what started my love for the field.

edit: I can even give you the book if you don't want to buy it, I've got the PDF on my computer somewhere.

Lithose · Sep 15, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Lith, do you not believe we can feed the world's hungry? Do you not believe we can dramatically reduce our dependence on oil? Do you not believe war (especially war for profit) should be eliminated? Do you not believe that crime can be reduced by addressing the root causes of crime? Do you not believe that the world's resources should be used more responsibly? Do you not believe that the "war on drugs" is doing more harm than good and should be abandoned? I could go on, but you get the idea. These aren't pipe dreams. These are all things that can and should be happening right now. In every case, there is one thing preventing these things from happening: compromise of someone's profit. Is that greed part of human nature?It doesn't even matter. It's completely irrelevant. We are rational beings capable of analyzing our own nature and its effect on us, and we can dismiss it if we so choose.

I didn't respond earlier because I thought the thread was dead, but since it's picked back up, let me respond now.

First off, like 6 months ago I got into a huge back and forth in the Politics Thread, ironically about "peak oil", where I promoted the unending innovation of mankind. I essentially said that a lot of the issues we face, including our dependence on oil, can be solved if we have the impetus to do so--because science and imagination have no bounds, at least none that we can currently conceive. So personally? Yes, I believe mankind is capable of anything. The issue is not about what's possible, the issue is about 1.) The REASON to do it. 2.)What's probable given the current rationality. As we discussed with peak oil. Until there is a need for NOT using an energy source with a relatively high energy per mass, that can be produced extremely cheaply (And that's including the hidden costs of the U.S. acting as a stabilization agent), and has such a fungible nature due to the global infrastructure set up to use it, then there isnorationality to do so.

And that's the thing, Tan. Economics is not based on what you believe can happen. It's based off of what individuals with powerwantto happen. What I BELIEVE the human race is capable of is only one variable in my rational outlook on what I believe will probably happen. However, I give a far greater weight to what happens in reality, to things I can measure, or to data that's been collected. And all of that has shown that has shown that the diversification of power, and the autonomy of economic drive in Capitalism, is superior due to the nature of how power devolves when in the hands of a more homogenous group.

Are humans capable of one day moving beyond that? Hodj, with his AI angels seems to think so. I tend to think so, as well, though I think it will come first from a society that technology has educated to levels that are only seen by Doctors/Engineers today. Whoever is right? Hard to say. But right NOW, you saying that we "should" be there isn't any different from a fantasy. Because we've tried to go "there", many times, and it ends in absolutely calamity...And you really have to account for that when you attempt to prescribe what our economic and political systems "should" be like right now. Economic systems that don't take human frailties into account? Are myopic systems. (And again, even Marx knew this--he assumed those frailties would disappear with the end of scarcity. But as others have illustrated, a post scarcity society is VERY hard to imagine, very, very hard.)

hodj · Sep 15, 2013

Tanoomba should volunteer to donate all his worldy possessions to a black family so that he can better come to understand the meaning behind the Marxist principles he espouses.

khalid · Sep 15, 2013

He never read Marx though, just completely espouses all his beliefs. It is kind of like finding someone talking about the virgin mary and jesus's ressurection and then them saying they never read the bible. I mean, I guess it is possible, just seems weird.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 15, 2013

I knew this long time ago and been telling everyone that tanoomba has no knowledge of anything that he speaks of and basically spouts anything that comes to mind. Thus, he is incapable of labeling himself with anything like Marxist or capitalist title because he does not understand the definition of one.

I WARNED YOU ALL.

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2013

(Spoilered for size)

Papashlapa_sl said:
If that were true, the very same evil rich capitalists you claim are exploiting society for their own massive profits wouldn't exist. They have their basic needs met, and then some, yet still apparently need to claim more and more, right?

Right, because of the greed that this competitive system encourages.

Papashlapa_sl said:
You just assume all the peers will give a shit about doing a good job, they'll all get personal satisfaction from doing a good job. I'm sure some of them will, but lots of them won't, and the system will be broken.

I don't assume that at all. Not everybody has to be productive for the Venus Project to work. Do you know why more people don't do a good job for the satisfaction of doing a good job? Because they hate their jobs.

Papashlapa_sl said:
Now you'll have an unelected, unaccountable nobility making all the decisions for society, and to make matters worse you've completely destroyed the concept of private property, which in actual effect means the nobility owns everything and you'd better be thankful for the scraps they give you.

What nobility? There is no nobility. Only experts in every field who work together. They are held accountable to everybody and are constantly refining their knowledge as they continue to learn and study.

Papashlapa_sl said:
Why do we all of a sudden not need people paving roads or working at McDonald's? Are we just going to wave a magic wand? Or are we going to use technology to develop robots to do this for us? If so, why aren't we doing that now? I'll tell you why. It costs more resources to develop those technologies than the benefit they would convey, that's why they're unprofitable and no one's doing it. That doesn't mean it will never happen, we're just not there yet, and as soon as we are ready I can guarantee some greedy capitalist is going to jump on that shit because it lets him beat his competition and increase market share and profits.

Does it take more resources to develop these robots, or does it just cost too much? The technology may already exist for a burger-making robot, but at the moment it's not worth it for McDonald's to use them because the cost of the robot is greater than the cost of paying minimum wage to some teenager. Using these robots will harm their profit margin. Take the need to make a profit out of the equation and *poof*, millions of teenagers freed to pursue more engaging interests, such as how to make the burger robot more durable, faster and more efficient (for example).

Papashlapa_sl said:
How do you not see the difference between individuals separately making millions of decisions and some unelected technocracy centrally managing these decisions. See, when a good becomes more scarce, prices rise, and people have every incentive to reduce their consumption of that good. Nobody needs to know why they're using less of it, nobody needs to read a report detailing current production levels or current reserves of that good, all they need to know is it's more expensive and they'll choose ALL ON THEIR OWN to use less of it. The centralization of decision making leads to inefficiency because knowledge is diffused widely among millions of people, and the decentralized system aggregates the decisions of those people (thanks Hayek!).

There's no "centralized" decision making. It's still millions of people making these decisions. I, as a teacher, would have a say in how teaching English as a second language should be done. I would have access to everything we've ever learned about ESL teaching. Peers in my field would hear my suggestions and respond with criticism or further suggestions. We'd put our heads together to solve the problems ESL teachers face today, and as the field evolves and changes we will change with it. Teachers could work with neuro-scientists, for example, so that knowledge of how the brain functions could influence how we approach teaching. We're all following paths we chose to follow, and since there is no greater satisfaction than seeing the fruits of your labor benefiting the real world, there would be no reason to half-ass the work we're doing. instead of including your next paragraph, allow me to reiterate that there is no central authority.

Papashlapa_sl said:
If there's no private property, if the product of your labour doesn't belong to you, than it belongs to society, and you are a slave to that society. When that happens, the very same people that would be captains of industry in today's society instead become captains of the bureaucracy, but now theyliterally own you. That's the death of all human freedom and prosperity.

Dude, we're already slaves to society. We can't opt out of this system. At least the Venus Project gives you the freedom to choose whatever path you like and try to fulfill your potential in that field. You don't have to worry about whether or not you can afford the education. You don't have to worry about ever ending up starving on the street. You don't have to worry about anybody trying to cheat you out of anything. You don't have to worry about whether your house is nicer than your neighbor's. You don't have to worry about your car breaking down. Etc, etc, etc. It is literally the birth of the greatest freedom mankind will have ever seen.

fanaskin · Sep 15, 2013

How are you going to compel people who don't want to work? I presume they have access to the same resources as everyone else because they are equal, how do you determine how much and what to work for? Also say you want to be an artist who takes pictures of bugs, but we have enough bug artists and scientifically it would be a waste of resources, how do you handle those situations?

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2013

(Spoilered for size, curse these long posts!)

Lithose_sl said:
I essentially said that a lot of the issues we face, including our dependence on oil, can be solved if we have the impetus to do so--because science and imagination have no bounds, at least none that we can currently conceive. So personally? Yes, I believe mankind is capable of anything. The issue is not about what's possible, the issue is about 1.) The REASON to do it. 2.)What's probable given the current rationality. As we discussed with peak oil. Until there is a need for NOT using an energy source with a relatively high energy per mass, that can be produced extremely cheaply (And that's including the hidden costs of the U.S. acting as a stabilization agent), and has such a fungible nature due to the global infrastructure set up to use it, then there isnorationality to do so.

Wait a second, are you saying that there just isn't enough reason not to use oil? So the fact that it's a non-renewable resource, it causes incredible amounts of pollution and destruction to the environment and wars are fought over it just aren't good enough reasons? Seems to me like any one of those reasons alone would be enough to strongly deter us from depending on oil. However, when you put "$$$$" on the other end of the scale, there's just no contest any more. We have plenty of reason, but the reason HAS to include "rich people will get richer" in order for it to become an option.This isthe current rationality, which is why that "rationality" has to be changed if we're going to fix this.

Lithose_sl said:
And that's the thing, Tan. Economics is not based on what you believe can happen. It's based off of what individuals with powerwantto happen.

Isn't this what I've been saying the problem is for days now?

Lithose_sl said:
What I BELIEVE the human race is capable of is only one variable in my rational outlook on what I believe will probably happen. However, I give a far greater weight to what happens in reality, to things I can measure, or to data that's been collected. And all of that has shown that has shown that the diversification of power, and the autonomy of economic drive in Capitalism, is superior due to the nature of how power devolves when in the hands of a more homogenous group.

I love measurable data! Like the data that shows how many ailments medical marijuana can help. It's incredible! An easily grown weed can make several expensive and harmful drugs obsolete overnight! The quality of life of millions and millions of people would be significantly improved! I'm also a fan of that light bulb that's been burning for over a hundred years. It was created before our grandparents were born and it's still burning. That's an observable fact. So when I talk about what we're capable of, even if I include exclusively only include things we've already accomplished, we're behind. Or, to be more specific, we're being held back. I'm sorry, I can't give Capitalism a free pass on that just because it works better than feudal lords and emperors.

Lithose_sl said:
Are humans capable of one day moving beyond that? Hodj, with his AI angels seems to think so. I tend to think so, as well, though I think it will come first from a society that technology has educated to levels that are only seen by Doctors/Engineers today. Whoever is right? Hard to say. But right NOW, you saying that we "should" be there isn't any different from a fantasy. Because we've tried to go "there", many times, and it ends in absolutely calamity...And you really have to account for that when you attempt to prescribe what our economic and political systems "should" be like right now. Economic systems that don't take human frailties into account? Are myopic systems. (And again, even Marx knew this--he assumed those frailties would disappear with the end of scarcity. But as others have illustrated, a post scarcity society is VERY hard to imagine, very, very hard.)

Of course right now it's fantasy. Shit, I probably got put on several lists just for having this conversation. (If I die in a car crash this week, know that it was THEM.) While you might say that Capitalism does take human frailty into account where the Venus Project doesn't (which is highly debatable), I would go as far as to say it creates frailty where there need not be any.

Tanoomba · Sep 15, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
How are you going to compel people who don't want to work? I presume they have access to the same resources as everyone else because they are equal, how do you determine how much and what to work for? Also say you want to be an artist who takes pictures of bugs, but we have enough bug artists and scientifically it would be a waste of resources, how do you handle those situations?

Not everybody has to work. As more and more manual labor is automated, people are freed up to pursue whatever interests them. People can sit on their ass and do nothing all day if they like. But you know what, being an unproductive slug when literally any field you could want to pursue is an option for you would very likely get boring after a while. I don't think there would be the couch potato epidemic many people seem to assume would occur. If you want to be a bug photographer, go for it. Even if you add nothing new to the field, you are in the best position to learn everything there is to learn about bug photography, which might be incredibly fulfilling for you. How would that lead to a waste of resources?

Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

Lord Nagafen Raider

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

Unelected Mod

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

Unelected Mod

ジョーディーすれいやー

Unelected Mod

Vox Populi Jihadi

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Lord Nagafen Raider

Buzzfeed Editor

Vox Populi Jihadi

Unelected Mod

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー