View Single Post

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 19:01
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
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.
Why not? What is it about "uncontrolled freedom" (an oxymoron) that prevents people from having tools?

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?
There will be no corruption like we know it, because there's nothing to corrupt. People will not be angelic somehow, if that's what you mean. But any corruption will not be able to harm others - at least not in a detectable way.

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 )
You're asking if human psychology interacts with humans - which is kinda redundant.

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.
Again, there are two kinds of resources and ways to utilise them. For infrastructure - that will fall under basic needs - as will any potential improvement - but the research after society is established could be a "luxury" based thing. As in, people are free to try and improve technology outside the long-term system of upgrades/maintenance.

If a lot of people choose to work together to accomplish that, then they may or may not be able to agree. But even if they don't and they end up not working well, there's really no harm done. It's a waste of luxury resources - but where nothing's ventured - nothing's gained.

It's not like this society is perfect or anything close to that. Lots of failures are bound to happen - just like any project in our current world. The failures just won't affect other people in a way that threaten their lives or ability to live in comfort.

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.
I think it's stupid - because it's an extremely bad match for human psychology.

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.
I'm not putting the primary emphasis on it, no. Mostly because there's no way I can come up with an ideal distribution system by myself. It would take years of combined research, planning and work before a real answer is available.

The concept is sound - which is what I'm saying. There's no reason it can't work - but I'm not going to claim I have a perfect implementation. My answer is focused on the immediate issues - not those that don't deal directly with the core problems I'm trying to solve.

Don't you think you are underestimating the psychological importance of privacy?
I think privacy is as desirable as our society makes it. I think secrets and lies are harmful to our minds and our ability to cope with the real world. I think it has become such an every day reality - to lie to oneself and to others - that we're desperate to hold on to our privacy.

I think our privacy supports the emotions of shame and feelings of inferiority - and I think it isolates us.

But, no, I don't think we need them to be comfortable. I think you might be surprised at how liberating it can be to not have to hide or tell lies (however "innocent").

That said, privacy of the mind will remain - and people are free to isolate themselves, physically.

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.
So, because prisoners rebelled against being monitored when incarcerated, you think that's a likely scenario in a world where monitoring is universal and universally agreed upon?

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?
There's no system in place to prevent a bartering system as such, but it won't affect even distribution of basic needs resources. Quality and varied food will be a basic need - but it will be a natural tendency to want to give without getting. Human nature is not human behavior - which is key to understand. If someone or a group requested resources to produce special foods, they'd need to go through the petition/voting system - and that would typically mean they'd have to distribute it freely to anyone interested, or they'd be contested for the resources. Otherwise, it would be of so little interest - that they couldn't barter anything for it.

Do you believe that rationality will always prevail over irrationality?
Of course not.

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.
It's just that your questions are those of someone already determined to see this fail, and not someone who's genuinely curious to see if there's something you haven't considered.

Well, that's how you started - anyway.

But it's the expected response, so I don't really mind.

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?
It's my claim that we can have pleasurable experiences with food without killing animals for meat. I believe it's because we're conditioned to like meat - and I believe it's easily replaced, people just don't bother because they don't mind killing animals.

Btw, why is not eating meat a better way of living?
Why I think it is? That's because I don't enjoy killing living beings for no rational reason. In fact, I don't enjoy doing irrational things deliberately - especially when it's easily avoided. I don't enjoy not enjoying myself - so life would be better if I minimise my lack of enjoyment.

I actually will.
Let me know what you think
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#54

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,257