View Single Post


November 22nd, 2012, 14:13
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I think this approach is seriously flawed. When everything is voluntary, two or three smart and dedicated people can perfectly come together to create some great stuff. However, when one wants to reach higher goals, a large group will be required and it is very hard, if not impossible, to reach a common consensus on how the workpackages are distributed and who will take the responsable roles regarding authority and final decision making.
That will be an internal matter - and the results are not guarenteed. The reason it's not a big deal - is that no one is harmed and society can function regardless of the results. That's why it's essential to always meet actual needs first.

But I don't think you're giving much credit to people here. Then again, you obviously have a different perception of the potential of human beings who're not bound by current limitations and flawed systems.

You probably think of people as they function today, in whatever structure or organisation. You might think people are automatically corrupt - and will not be able to cooperate without elaborate laws and systems. But that's based on how our current society works - and not on human psychology.

Again, think about how Native Americans (there are other examples, but this is a good one - because we all know about it) - functioned in the past. For whatever reason, they managed to live in relative harmony without being "civilised" and without modern technology.

Many of our problems today - beyond resource scarcity and inequality - are based on distinct cultures with separate values and norms. That's why unification is essential. Basically, there are two main problems in our world society that are the root of the vast majority of our pain and suffering.

1. Ignorance (poor education, no common language, and many other things).
2. Excessively stupid resource distribution.

Now, these are interconnected. When you have to fight to survive - and other people have much more than they need, and you have nothing - you don't have the inclination to "understand" and "learn" about other people. You're just pissed.

Well, a very primitive and basic example - but it should get the point across.

A pre-established structured organisation, regardless of its perceived efffectiveness, will allow large groups to work together so that that far reaching goals can be achieved.
Yes, certainly. Why are you excluding the possibility of structured organisations?

Human beings aren't inherently barbaric and stupid. We're social creatures. You're born with the ability to evolve - and you will evolve according to your capacity and the information and experiences you have access to.

There difference is that there's no payment involved or required - and there is no rank with a value difference attached. Leadership can function extremely well under equality. You have a leader because you need one, not because he's "worth" more or has a higher "rank". Something that doesn't really compute today.

Are you implying that you have this profound insight in human behaviour such that you can extrapolate this knowledge and predict the human condition in a hypothetical situation that none of us have ever witnessed?
Ehm, I wouldn't call my insight particularly profound. That said, I do think I have a good idea of how human beings function and how our psychology is being affected by our upbringing, cultural history, societal influences, profoundly stupid systems (like the monetary system) and so on. I'm not claiming to be able to predict anything that's a mystery.

I admit, I lost you there. So you make a distinction between finished luxury products and resources to produce those luxury products?
Wouldn't you make that distinction? The real problem of today is that basic meets are not being met - and people are dying because they don't have access to resources. Resource scarcity based on ignorance, greed, political interests and so on. That's the problem I'm proposing a solution to.

What happens after these needs are met, I consider secondary - and there are millions of ways to handle it. It's something that would take a very long time to design - and it doesn't have to be perfect from the beginning.

What if someone were to make his/her own homegrown cheese, a luxury item, after receiving the resources to produce it on a regular basis. Would that person be allowed to distribute that cheese as he or she sees fit or would a "centralised authority" decide how that luxury item is distributed?
There would be no control beyond set parameters for health and safety considerations. Cheese, for instance - might not meet the criteria for healthy living - but that's something people would agree upon during the planning phase.

A key aspect of this society is the constant monitoring of our biological systems. There's no known or knowable physical health issue without detection - and everyone will have full access to this knowledge at all times.

If you're worried about what people do with their resources - remember that everyone has their exact position monitored at all times - and everything is logged by impartial systems. No one can be anywhere without detection and no one can do anything physical to someone without detection - and everything is logged for all to peruse - at all times.

Something which will make 9 out 10 people jump out of their seat - and I don't need to hear about the horrors of big brother societies and whatever fright-induced scenario people imagine when they hear about this. It's, again, based on our current way of thinking - and how secrets are vital for survival in our minds today. But it doesn't have to be like that.

The kicker is that we won't really need this system, eventually. Once people can live in comfort without fear of their health or their lives - or their loved ones - they stop being interested in harming other people.

I can't eliminate human emotions - like love and jealousy. But we can educate people to the point where you don't feel the need to harm someone, because he or she makes you feel bad.

True, which is why I found it odd that you would attribute such property to my character. I expected just a simple "yes" or "no" .
Odd in what way?

Do you really think you appear as someone who's genuinely open to my idea and your curiosity is not motivated mostly by your preconceived notion of how ridiculous it all is.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second you're truly open to anything even remotely like what I'm suggesting.

Your primary motivation seems to be about shooting it down for kicks and to prove something. You're not offering anything except criticism.

Now, that's perfectly alright - and I enjoy the exchange.

I am indeed not a religious person but denouncing religion myself does not automatically imply that I do not accept that to be a valid way of life for others.
Actually, it kinda does. Look up the word.

I think this is one of the main flaws. The founders of such society would probably live in harmony but there is absolutely no guarantee that future generations will continue with that philosophy.
There are no guarentees in this life. But I think what you're missing is what happens when you're brought up in this environment - and you're being allowed full access to the alternative. Information will also be completely accessible to everyone with minimal censorship.

Also, as long as the "other" world exists (which could be basically forever - though I think it will eventually cease) - they're free to leave and do whatever they want.

What is the deal with vegetarianism? From what I understand, the people's diet should not interfere with the "mechanics" of your society. It seems to me that you are imposing some of your own morality.
Of course I'm imposing some of my own ideas and values. I'm the one making this up, after all. But there are few things that aren't subject to debate.

I'm a utilitarian - and if we can live in comfort without meat - I don't see any utility in killing other beings - and I've yet to hear a logical or rational reason why we should.

It's an outdated necessity.

Note that I'm NOT a vegetarian myself - and that I'm fully aware of the hypocrisy. But that doesn't stop me from recognising what I think is a better way to live your life.


If you're genuinely interested in being open, I suggest googling The Venus Project. It shares a lot of my ideas - and I was literally shocked when I was told about it a few years ago.

I was talking about my ideas to a girl - and she told me that I was talking about TVP. I said: "What?" - and she pointed it out to me.

There's this guy called Jacque Fresco who - apparently - has ideas that are VERY similar to my own. His focus is more on the logistics and the engineering aspects - and he's probably a lot more believable than I am.

There's been some unfortunate involvement with the Zeitgeist movement - which I can't take seriously.

But the core concept is very similar to mine - though I tend to focus on how to actually initialise this society - and on human psychology.
Last edited by DArtagnan; November 22nd, 2012 at 14:34.
DArtagnan is offline


DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258