View Single Post


November 22nd, 2012, 16:39
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
Dedicated and motivated people who are not bound and have freedom can indeed achieve many great things and that is no secret. But once a certan critical mass is obtained, you need to hold things together and complete uncontrolled freedom will not give you the necessary tools.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
So, If I understand you correctly, your assumption is that people will not be corruptable due to the nature of the society they live in? So your society is one where this corruption is eliminated by design?

But wouldn't you say that society and human psychology dynamically interact with each other? And that society is partly a result of human psychology?
(I wouldn't be surprised if JemyM would jump in any moment now )

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
When everything is purely voluntary, one cannot ensure that everyone in a large group will agree. Large endeavours involving many people are very difficult IMO. At some point, points of conflict will arise. I am not talking about buiilding a wooden bridge to cross a small river but big projects like e.g. bulding a large scale high-speed train network. The latter, I really don't see in your system.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
profoundly stupid systems (like the monetary system)
I don't think the monetary system is inherently stupid. As Zaleukos has pointed out in a previous post, "money" is simply a natural evolution of the bartering system.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
I agree with you about the resources for the primary needs and I do think that that is a goal worth pursuing. It is the "secondary needs", the so-called "luxuries" that make me believe that your system is flawed. You do not seem to put emphasis on this whereas I do.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.

- 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.
Don't you think you are underestimating the psychological importance of privacy?

It reminds me of a documentary I saw about a prison where they decided to put video cameras in all places, including the cells, so that al prisoners could be monitored at all times. As a consequence, they went berserk and caused a huge riot. One of these prisoners was interviewed and he couldn't believe that he acted in such a barbarian manner because he considered himself to be a calm and rational person.

About the cheese example:
So you then say that the person in question is allowed to distribute the cheese according to his/her criteria, as long it doesn't involve any illegal or harmful activities? If so, wouldn't that potentially lead to a local bartering system for practical reasons and on the long run even lead to some kind of local currency? What mechanism outside of "voluntary restrain" would prevent this?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
Do you believe that rationality will always prevail over irrationality?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
It is true that I do tend to add some humour with a slight touch of sarcasm into my inquiries. However, I do so to make a point. A point based on legitimate questions and I do give you ample room to make a case to provide arguments and I do listen to those arguments. Whether I interpret them correctly is another matter of course.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
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.
Food is apart from a necessity also one of the pleasures in life. Why deny people certain pleasures? If basic needs are met, why impose limitations on luxuries?

Btw, why is not eating meat a better way of living?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
If you're genuinely interested in being open, I suggest googling The Venus Project.
I actually will.
Asdraguuhl is offline


Asdraguuhl's Avatar


Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 444