Lasty Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 than any amount of monetary reparations. We can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. America was founded by asshats who didn't want to give up their slaves or, by extension, their money. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poof Posted February 17, 2022 Share Posted February 17, 2022 I liked Jacque Fresco and his ambition for his venus project but he's blind to politics/human nature. Neil Degrasse Tyson also wrote a short thing about putting scientists in charge of resource allocation instead of a market economy and was equally blind. What they both ignore in their utopianism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture Meaning once you set up your resource based economy, it would only be a matter of time until the bad elements figure out how to infiltrate the system of authority (merit based systems aren't immune to this). The Venus project just insists that scientists aren't corruptible and since positions of authority would only be given to scientists, it would just work. Overall it's a good idea but doesn't solve for corruption. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invisible man Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 On 2/17/2022 at 3:43 PM, Poof said: Overall it's a good idea but doesn't solve for corruption. While that is true I think we could agree that in general if basic needs were being met like food, water and shelter then most crime and corruption would go away. Another aspect of it would be that everyone helps doing everything but only for specific period of time. If you only spent 1 month working wether it be one job or various jobs and had the rest of the time to do what you really love I would think you wouldn't be very quick to give that up. While it wouldn't be a immediate end all bad things answer taking the power and money out of corporations hands would be a great thing for all of us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasty Posted February 19, 2022 Author Share Posted February 19, 2022 On 2/17/2022 at 12:43 PM, Poof said: I liked Jacque Fresco and his ambition for his venus project but he's blind to politics/human nature. Neil Degrasse Tyson also wrote a short thing about putting scientists in charge of resource allocation instead of a market economy and was equally blind. What they both ignore in their utopianism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture Meaning once you set up your resource based economy, it would only be a matter of time until the bad elements figure out how to infiltrate the system of authority (merit based systems aren't immune to this). The Venus project just insists that scientists aren't corruptible and since positions of authority would only be given to scientists, it would just work. Overall it's a good idea but doesn't solve for corruption. Money is the platform on which corruption rests. It's not just putting scientists in charge, but the elimination of the monetary system, and you've overlooked that very important element. It absolutely solves for corruption. The thing about science is that it is not subject to individual interpretation, and the opinion oriented political system we have now uses subjective rhetoric to swindle people. This is not possible in science. Corruption left over from the monetary system might persist at first, but it would not have an easy time of weaseling it's way into positions of authority, and after a few generations it would disappear lacking the chief environmental factor contributing to it. Politics is very far removed from science, and society distrusts politicians increasingly, proportional to the growth of scientific literacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 1 minute ago, Lasty said: Money is the platform on which corruption rests. It's not just putting scientists in charge, but the elimination of the monetary system, and you've overlooked that very important element. It absolutely solves for corruption. The thing about science is that it is not subject to individual interpretation, and the opinion oriented political system we have now uses subjective rhetoric to swindle people. This is not possible in science. Corruption left over from the monetary system might persist at first, but it would not have an easy time of weaseling it's way into positions of authority, and after a few generations it would disappear lacking the chief environmental factor contributing to it. Politics is very far removed from science, and society distrusts politicians increasingly, proportional to the growth of scientific literacy. Barter systems can also be corrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasty Posted February 19, 2022 Author Share Posted February 19, 2022 17 hours ago, Invisible man said: While that is true I think we could agree that in general if basic needs were being met like food, water and shelter then most crime and corruption would go away. Another aspect of it would be that everyone helps doing everything but only for specific period of time. If you only spent 1 month working wether it be one job or various jobs and had the rest of the time to do what you really love I would think you wouldn't be very quick to give that up. While it wouldn't be a immediate end all bad things answer taking the power and money out of corporations hands would be a great thing for all of us. Jacque himself said that it wouldn't be perfect, and he strictly avoided utopian rhetoric, noting that the environment is always changing and no one system will ever be perfect for all situations, and any decent system must be capable of change. (unlike our current system that promises change over and over again without any intention of actually solving tangible problems if it's not a profitable process) This a transient paradise, not an unchanging utopia. To me, it certainly represents the best of what human knowledge, skills and tools have to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasty Posted February 19, 2022 Author Share Posted February 19, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Barter systems can also be corrupted. A resource based economy is not a barter system, it's a system that has never been tried before, which is great considering the fact that everything else we've tried have been colossal failures. Even countries that do well on the happiness index and have low corruption are not able to solve problems on a global scale due to being surrounded by highly corrupted systems; we cannot solve our problems by isolation. We will thrive or fall as a species, all together as one family, whether we manage to get along or not. The choice... is ours.... Edited February 19, 2022 by Lasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 Just now, Lasty said: A resource based economy is not a barter system. 9 minutes ago, Lasty said: Money is the platform on which corruption rests. It's not just putting scientists in charge, but the elimination of the monetary system, and you've overlooked that very important element. It absolutely solves for corruption. Corruption can and does exist in the absence of money because corruption is the peddling of favorable treatment or benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasty Posted February 19, 2022 Author Share Posted February 19, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Corruption can and does exist in the absence of money because corruption is the peddling of favorable treatment or benefits. I didn't say it couldn't exist in the absence of money; I said that money is the chief contributing factor. I would add that this is so by many orders of magnitude more than any other contributing factor. It is easy to claim that greed is human nature when we have used money for thousands of years, enabling greed to grow. That could make it seem like human nature, but money was causing it the whole time, not human nature. Human nature is better reflected by parents that care for their children for decades into adulthood even though they receive no immediate personal benefit. Our species has expanded to every corner of the globe because of our ability to organize with mutual aid. The only way to be sure whether corruption persists in the absence of money is to stop using money and see what happens. There is no reason to go on playing monopoly when the actual resources being spent on the idea of money are orders of magnitude too expensive; we only have one habitable planet and we'll need two more just like this one to keep up with our current rate of consumption. There is no way to solve our problems with the same thinking that created them. Edited February 19, 2022 by Lasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnmjy Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 11 minutes ago, Lasty said: Money is the platform on which corruption rests. It's not just putting scientists in charge, but the elimination of the monetary system, and you've overlooked that very important element. It absolutely solves for corruption. The thing about science is that it is not subject to individual interpretation, and the opinion oriented political system we have now uses subjective rhetoric to swindle people. This is not possible in science. Corruption left over from the monetary system might persist at first, but it would not have an easy time of weaseling it's way into positions of authority, and after a few generations it would disappear lacking the chief environmental factor contributing to it. Politics is very far removed from science, and society distrusts politicians increasingly, proportional to the growth of scientific literacy. I think the distrust of politicians has little to nothing to do with scientific literacy. You look at the average flat earther, who tends to be against the establishment. The distrust of late has risen because of easier access to mass communication, that is the internet. Just ask the average person why the sky is blue, and see how little scientific literacy the average person has. Science is not infallible, nor does it currently have the answers to everything, particularly regarding social issues. There are such things as power-hungry scientists too. What's stopping people from performing human experimentation on a large scale? You really think the lack of money will stop that if enough scientists are interested? There is currently no universally accepted scientific answer to morality. And if you consider psychology a science, there is still a lot of disagreements in that field. Whether you like it or not, thinking scientists are the best persons to lead society is also a subjective stance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasty Posted February 19, 2022 Author Share Posted February 19, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bnmjy said: I think the distrust of politicians has little to nothing to do with scientific literacy. You look at the average flat earther, who tends to be against the establishment. The distrust of late has risen because of easier access to mass communication, that is the internet. Just ask the average person why the sky is blue, and see how little scientific literacy the average person has. Science is not infallible, nor does it currently have the answers to everything, particularly regarding social issues. There are such things as power-hungry scientists too. What's stopping people from performing human experimentation on a large scale? You really think the lack of money will stop that if enough scientists are interested? There is currently no universally accepted scientific answer to morality. And if you consider psychology a science, there is still a lot of disagreements in that field. Whether you like it or not, thinking scientists are the best persons to lead society is also a subjective stance. What do you consider an objective stance, if not science? I'm sorry, but that is ludicrous. No one can ever be 100% objective, but that doesn't mean science isn't the best tool at our disposal, again, by many orders of magnitude.... Politics is like, 0.00000000000000000000000000001% objective and you're complaining about science only being 99.99999999999999999% objective.... No system will ever be perfect. A resource based economy is just a lot better than what we have. Edited February 19, 2022 by Lasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 Greed has been around long before money was even a thing. There have always been people who did all that they could to amass as much of whatever it was that gave people power and wealth. This will not change just by getting rid of money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 7 minutes ago, Lasty said: I didn't say it couldn't exist in the absence of money; I said that money is the chief contributing factor. I would add that this is so by many orders of magnitude more than any other contributing factor. It is easy to claim that greed is human nature when we have used money for thousands of years, enabling greed to grow. That could make it seem like human nature, but money was causing it the whole time, not human nature. Human nature is better reflected by parents that care for their children for decades into adulthood even though they receive no immediate personal benefit. Our species has expanded to every corner of the globe because of our ability to organize with mutual aid. The only way to be sure whether corruption persists in the absence of money is to stop using money and see what happens. There is no reason to go on playing monopoly when the actual resources being spent on the idea of money are orders of magnitude too expensive; we only have one habitable planet and we'll need two more just like this one to keep up with our current rate of consumption. There is no way to solve our problems with the same thinking that created them. But you're not framing the issue properly. Money can't both cause and enable greed if greed preexists money. Getting rid of money might expose other contributing factors, but it can't possibly eliminate greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnmjy Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, Lasty said: What do you consider an objective stance, if not science? I'm sorry, but that is ludicrous. That's not what I said. You seem to think scientists will do everything on the basis of objectivity. I'm saying there are certain things that have yet to be objectively verified, like morality, and I think scientists would use precedents set by less scientifically literate people, that is politicians, on many issues that may arrise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 This has gone well 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invisible man Posted February 19, 2022 Share Posted February 19, 2022 I think another valuable asset is that most jobs are going to go away and be replaced with machines. This is fact and will not stop at all so people can talk all they want about creating jobs but there will be less and less available for people in general which will only make people think they need to do things they wouldn't normally do to survive. I agree that greed did exist pre money but I think overall it would be worth a shot because most people are decent and would only take what they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts