15 Jul 09
1 edit
Any arguments against of for it? As a socialist at heart I find it to be a very alluring set of ideas.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/13/jacque-fresco-prediction-tech-future07-cx_1015fresco.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco#Resource-based_economy
A major theme of Fresco's is the concept of a resource-based economy that replaces the
need for the scarcity-oriented monetary economy we have now. Fresco argues that the world is
rich in natural resources and energy and that —with modern technology and judicious efficiency—
the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing
the current limitations of what is deemed possible due to notions of economic viability. [...] Fresco
states that for this to work, all of the Earth's resources must be held as the common heritage of all
people and not just a select few; and the practice of rationing resources through monetary
methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to our survival.
I seriously like this man.
http://www.fbdthemovie.com/trailer.html
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm thinking it would work the same as with any other resources we extract from nature. First of
So let's assume everyone owns for example the oil reserves in the world. How would it work?
all, we utilise technology as far as we can. The manual work that remains to be done is split
equally among all work enabled citizens, and everyone gets their fair share of what society produce.
Voilá!
It's brilliant in its angelic clarity.
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieWouldn't you need a single world government for that first?
I'm thinking it would work the same as with any other resources we extract from nature. First of
all, we utilise technology as far as we can. The manual work that remains to be done is split
equally among all work enabled citizens, and everyone gets their fair share of what society produce.
Voilá!
It's brilliant in its angelic clarity.
16 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy?
Wouldn't you need a single world government for that first?
Oh, you mean since oil can't be fetched from just anywhere? Duh. Stupid me. Well, yes, the goal
would be that all people live under the same flag. The only way to accomplish that would be a
system like he proposes.
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI believe he's actually talking of no government, police and so on. I have no idea how that works,
Decision-making seems strangely absent from his ideas. If he thinks of technocrats as forming some sort of tacit consensus (the mythical state-of-the-art as a focal point instead of a frontier of possibilities), then he has no idea of what research is about.
but I'm open to the idea. Decision making in itself doesn't imply that one, or a small group, must
make all the decisions on behalf of everyone else, does it? Concensus is required only in so far that
the majority agrees on something. But then there's the case of which people are most qualified to
make certain decisions. Perhaps a system where people whom are educated in specific fields
determine whether or not a given suggestion is possible and safe first, and then the rest of the
people decide whether or not to do it. With our current computer and communications technology it's
not all that hard to put together a system for voting that can be almost instantaneous.
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieWell, if there is a single world government anyway, then his theory is manifestly validated since everyone owns all the resources then - you then just need a government which distributes its revenue fairly.
Why?
Oh, you mean since oil can't be fetched from just anywhere? Duh. Stupid me. Well, yes, the goal
would be that all people live under the same flag. The only way to accomplish that would be a
system like he proposes.
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOr not a government at all if people are aware of their rights and corresponding responsibilities.
Well, if there is a single world government anyway, then his theory is manifestly validated since everyone owns all the resources then - you then just need a government which distributes its revenue fairly.
Mind-boggling, isn't it?
16 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieI believe he's actually talking of no government, police and so on. I have no idea how that works, but I'm open to the idea.
I believe he's actually talking of no government, police and so on. I have no idea how that works,
but I'm open to the idea. Decision making in itself doesn't imply that one, or a small group, must
make all the decisions on behalf of everyone else, does it? Concensus is required only in so far that
the majority agrees on something. But then there's the ...[text shortened]... s
not all that hard to put together a system for voting that can be almost instantaneous.
But this is fundamental. Proposing a completely different way to pool and organize resources and being vague about decision-making is extremely dangerous, in my opinion. What about labour allocation? This type of large scale projects require huge coordination issues at a geographical level. The only projects of voluntary contribution of something of this scale that I know of are all online.
I agree it would be interesting if a country decided to embark on something like this, but I have to say I'm skeptical.
16 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]I believe he's actually talking of no government, police and so on. I have no idea how that works, but I'm open to the idea.
But this is fundamental. Proposing a completely different way to pool and organize resources and being vague about decision-making is extremely dangerous, in my opinion. What about labour allocation? This type of large scale pr ...[text shortened]... sting if a country decided to embark on something like this, but I have to say I'm skeptical.[/b]
Perhaps a system where people whom are educated in specific fields determine whether
or not a given suggestion is possible and safe first, and then the rest of the people decide whether
or not to do it. With our current computer and communications technology it's not all that hard to
put together a system for voting that can be almost instantaneous.
What I'm thinking is that you have an interest or talent in certain subjects, and you want to be
part of the decision making progress. You show that you have the necessary expertise (like a test
of some kind), and then when a project is proposed that falls within your field of expertise you're
automatically invited to participate in the debate to determine whether or not it's a feasible project
at the current time (feasible as in it's safe to do and the current technology, social and practical
conditions are right).
Once a conclusion has been reached, and if the project is considered feasible, then the rest of the
people gets to vote on whether or not they're willing to see it through at this time.
Obviously, with thousands of projects being proposed daily, people would have little time but to
debate and vote, so I'm thinking you can limit your inclusion to specific subjects of interest and
local affairs, or affairs that is likely to affect your local community. We usually only vote on such
things anyway.
The idea is that we don't elect some party to represent us, but we elect on issues and we can
choose which issues we want to participate in. Using today's technologies this is not hard to do,
and each voting process would take much less time than when traditional bureaucracy is used.
16 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieCalifornia shows that this is definately not the right track - every possible tax increase does not get through the necessary referendum and budget deficits soar as a result.
[quote]Perhaps a system where people whom are educated in specific fields determine whether
or not a given suggestion is possible and safe first, and then the rest of the people decide whether
or not to do it. With our current computer and communications technology it's not all that hard to
put together a system for voting that can be almost instanta ach voting process would take much less time than when traditional bureaucracy is used.
16 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by JigtieThe amount of centralization required for a resource-based economy makes that all unfeasible, in my opinion. It's hard enough to do such giant scale projects using monetary incentives, but without them (or force, obviously) I just don't see how it can be done.It's not just about voting over doing a certain project, but the whole implementation of it is not a straight line, but a myriad of possibilities. You can't expect voters to go through the intricacies.
[quote]Perhaps a system where people whom are educated in specific fields determine whether
or not a given suggestion is possible and safe first, and then the rest of the people decide whether
or not to do it. With our current computer and communications technology it's not all that hard to
put together a system for voting that can be almost instanta ach voting process would take much less time than when traditional bureaucracy is used.
Another thing is that all large-scale voluntary projects that went well that I can remember were all over the internet. At least I can't remember a single exception. The main reason is that people don't need to change their lives (geographically and socially) to build such projects. Obviously, this doesn't apply to engineering projects which require the physical presence of large amounts of labour.