|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » University of Berkeley : Rich people have a greater tendency towards greed

Default University of Berkeley : Rich people have a greater tendency towards greed

November 21st, 2012, 23:25
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Luxury items are not based on what you produce or how hard you work, no. You seem very focused on rewards - but you seem oblivious to the concept of working for the result - and not a reward beyond the result.

There would be no fixed amount of luxuries. So, no.

There would be no societal demand, beyond the possibility of being part of a rotational workforce.
I overlooked your concept of "forced rotational labour". Out of curiosity, how will it be enforced? Do people get to choose what work they do or are they assigned to specific jobs?

I am not oblivious to the concept of working for the result otherwise I would not be working in the Space industry but instead in a bank earning considerably more money and meanwhile contributing to all the worlds financial woes .

The point I wanted to make is the following. Communism, the way it is implemented in the former Soviet Union, has shown that one cannot encourage competence, good work, effort and efficiency if the rewards, in whatever form, are lacking. Basic human behaviour. Working for the results is all great provided that you have a job that you like. Will your world guarantee this? if not, then I would never foresee a prosperous future for such world.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Suicide is an option and would not be illegal. As for the "vices" you suggest - they would not be illegal in the society. Gambling and prostitution, however, would work very differently - if at all.
Hmm, the example I stated wasn't meant to be taken literally.
My point is the following. Some form of vice is inevitable due to human nature. However, complete prohibition and full anarchy will IMO both have a very bad impact on society. So my point was to know to what extent you intend to "allow" vice.


Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I'm not sure what that has to do with delivery. If someone has made a restaurant somewhere - then it would depend on the speed of the public transportation system.
If I understood you correctly, luxury is obtained after a petition, or am I wrong? And, unless I understood you wrongly, resources and luxuries are distributed equally among the people. So I just wanted to understand better what procedure you had in mind for a trip on a Sunday, which would fit in the luxury category.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You're not listening. There is no set share of luxuries.
Then explain to me how luxuries are distributed among the people and in what quantities.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
What? You can volunteer to maintain it, if you wish.
Not maintaining, I don't care about maintaining. I talk about developing. These things don't grow on mechanical trees, you know?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, you're religious?
Make an educated guess .

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
In a select few areas, yeah. But you'd be surprised how complex it is to design a system that's workable and which seems feasible to someone who is extremely pragmatic - like myself.
Well, such a system could work if all involved share the same believes. But it will not take too long for little D'Artagnans to start popping out and after some while even newer D'Artagnans will see the light. And as we all know, the original D'Artagnan is not an inherently stable system and needs to have a very sophisticated control system to maintain balance. At some point, the control system of these new D'Artagnans will not be robust enough to accomodate changes and the system will start to diverge and when that happens…..

(sorry about the nerdy engineering terminology, couldn't resist )
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#41

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 392

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 00:02
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
I overlooked your concept of "forced rotational labour". Out of curiosity, how will it be enforced? Do people get to choose what work they do or are they assigned to specific jobs?
Well, you can call it forced - but it's really an agreed upon necessity. The "forced" aspect is simply another way of saying that it's necessary.

I am not oblivious to the concept of working for the result otherwise I would not be working in the Space industry but instead in a bank earning considerably more money and meanwhile contributing to all the worlds financial woes .
If you say so.

The point I wanted to make is the following. Communism, the way it is implemented in the former Soviet Union, has shown that one cannot encourage competence, good work, effort and efficiency if the rewards, in whatever form, are lacking. Basic human behaviour. Working for the results is all great provided that you have a job that you like. Will your world guarantee this? if not, then I would never foresee a prosperous future for such world.
You seem to miss the basics of the suggested system. Human "work" is not required - beyond the maintenance of the automated systems - and that will not be demanding in terms of competence. Also, it's impossible to accurately determine the level of human input required - but the goal is that it's going to be minimal. If that's not achievable - then the system is not really feasible.

Communism as it has been practised has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about - and I don't think it has much to do with the ideal of communism either.

Hmm, the example I stated wasn't meant to be taken literally.
My point is the following. Some form of vice is inevitable due to human nature. However, complete prohibition and full anarchy will IMO both have a very bad impact on society. So my point was to know to what extent you intend to "allow" vice.
No, I don't think it has to be inevitable. Vice is, again, a subjective concept. I'm not sure this concept is necessary at all. You're not really getting the system if you think it has to be allowed.

If I understood you correctly, luxury is obtained after a petition, or am I wrong? And, unless I understood you wrongly, resources and luxuries are distributed equally among the people. So I just wanted to understand better what procedure you had in mind for a trip on a Sunday, which would fit in the luxury category.
No, basic needs are met first. Luxury items - or what amounts to superfluous resources can be requested, and if they are available - they will be distributed according to weight of the request - which will likely be measured in votes behind the request - and votes based on the desirability of the outcome of attaining the items.

In other words, the more people behind the request for superfluous resourses - and the more people interested in whatever outcome of getting those resources - the higher a chance of receiving the luxury items in question.

I have no idea why you think a sunday trip would enter into any of that.

Then explain to me how luxuries are distributed among the people and in what quantities.
Look above. It will be a combination of requests and votes - with the expectation that the vast majority of available luxury resources will not be contested - because few people will want them. Luxury items today are very different from luxury items in a society with no class distinction or delusional value system.

Not maintaining, I don't care about maintaining. I talk about developing. These things don't grow on mechanical trees, you know?
You can petition a potential development, but the system will be in place and be functional without your assistance.

Make an educated guess .
You strike me as a young person who is smart enough to denounce religion, but not experienced enough to accept the possibility of it being a valid approach to life.

Well, such a system could work if all involved share the same believes. But it will not take too long for little D'Artagnans to start popping out and after some while even newer D'Artagnans will see the light. And as we all know, the original D'Artagnan is not an inherently stable system and needs to have a very sophisticated control system to maintain balance. At some point, the control system of these new D'Artagnans will not be robust enough to accomodate changes and the system will start to diverge and when that happens…..
That's nonsense. But yes, the people involved in starting this would need to agree about the fundamental structure of the society - obviously.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 00:52
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You seem to miss the basics of the suggested system. Human "work" is not required - beyond the maintenance of the automated systems - and that will not be demanding in terms of competence. Also, it's impossible to accurately determine the level of human input required - but the goal is that it's going to be minimal. If that's not achievable - then the system is not really feasible.
OK, so if I understand you correctly, everything is already in place and people only need to apply just a minimum of labour for maintainance purposes. So you would basically cultivate a population of button pushers?

So that would imply no new developments and thus technological stagnation, am I correct? If that is the case, then how can you guarantee that scientific and technical know-how is maintained throughout subsequent generations?

On the long term, What if certain machinery starts to malfunction or if they need to be updated due to imminent environmental changes?


Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
No, basic needs are met first. Luxury items - or what amounts to superfluous resources can be requested, and if they are available - they will be distributed according to weight of the request - which will likely be measured in votes behind the request - and votes based on the desirability of the outcome of attaining the items.

In other words, the more people behind the request for superfluous resourses - and the more people interested in whatever outcome of getting those resources - the higher a chance of receiving the luxury items in question.
Sorry, but this strikes as non-practical nonsense to me. How you intend to quantify this without causing any conflict is beyond me.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I have no idea why you think a sunday trip would enter into any of that.
This hypothetical trip is simply a collection of non-material luxuries and I was just wondering how it fit in your luxury distribution model.


Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
who is smart enough to denounce religion
Yep
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
but not experienced enough to accept the possibility of it being a valid approach to life
Nope, very bad character judging on your part.


Anyway, as most people here, I do not agree with this world view. It reminds me a bit of the Amish communities where you either take it or leave it and are simply shunned and even exiled if you don't play along. Frankly speaking, I feel a bit stupid for taking this more seriously than I should.
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#43

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 392

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 04:21
Dart, you re obviously a smart guy, but you are so out of touch with the logistical implications of your ideas that you sound unintentionally comical.
CrazyIrish is offline

CrazyIrish

Keeper of the Watch

#44

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 600

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 09:46
Originally Posted by Asdraguuhl View Post
OK, so if I understand you correctly, everything is already in place and people only need to apply just a minimum of labour for maintainance purposes. So you would basically cultivate a population of button pushers?
No, I'm supporting a world in which people are free to pursue their passions and interests. So, somewhat less like the slavery that most people experience in their workplace today.

I know that some people have seen Wall-E or read whatever sci-fi novel where people lose their ability to create and to be innovative when they're no longer required to do manual labor. However, that's not my perception of humanity.

So that would imply no new developments and thus technological stagnation, am I correct? If that is the case, then how can you guarantee that scientific and technical know-how is maintained throughout subsequent generations?
Why do you think there would be no new developments? People are free to develop and improve technology. That's what the resource distribution is about. Again, two categories: basic needs - and luxuries. But luxuries aren't "candy and a Mercedes" - luxuries are resources you can request and then there will be a weight based on a combined voting/petition system. As in, if the resources are available - they will go to those who request it - if it's not contested.

On the long term, What if certain machinery starts to malfunction or if they need to be updated due to imminent environmental changes?
I believe I've answered this already. Maintenance will be required - and technological improvements are much more likely to exist, because there are no political interests to prevent them. But the long-term planning that goes into this - before anything happens - will obviously include perpetual function and an upgrade/replacement plan for all essential systems.

Sorry, but this strikes as non-practical nonsense to me. How you intend to quantify this without causing any conflict is beyond me.
I have no doubt that you have a hard time imagining it. You're living in a world full of conflict - based on resource scarcity and obscene distinction of "human values". What you aren't seeing is what would happen to the human condition if there was no struggle to survive or to live in comfort.

This hypothetical trip is simply a collection of non-material luxuries and I was just wondering how it fit in your luxury distribution model.
Again, I think you misunderstand. It won't be luxury items as we understand them today. That's why I like to call them "superfluous" items. Mostly, it will be resources from which to PRODUCE luxury items - and the assignment of such resources will go to those most likely to produce something that will benefit others - that's why the voting/petition system is there.

Nope, very bad character judging on your part.
I don't have much to work with. It was just a guess

So, if you denounce religion - how do you also accept it as a valid way of life? You do understand what denounce means, right?

Anyway, as most people here, I do not agree with this world view. It reminds me a bit of the Amish communities where you either take it or leave it and are simply shunned and even exiled if you don't play along. Frankly speaking, I feel a bit stupid for taking this more seriously than I should.
It's not a world view. It's a concept of an alternate society. But it's true that the system requires people to agree with it. That's the voluntary part. That's completely opposite of small communities - because it's open and anything but exclusive. It makes no demands of any kind on belief or morality. You're asked not to harm or kill other beings - and you might have to do occasional work in a completely impartial rotational system where no single able body is excluded.

If you think the demands of this society are high - then I wouldn't want to think about your opinion of the demands of our current society.

Also, you were taking me seriously? Bullshit. But it was interesting all the same.
Last edited by DArtagnan; November 22nd, 2012 at 10:27.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 09:51
Originally Posted by CrazyIrish View Post
Dart, you re obviously a smart guy, but you are so out of touch with the logistical implications of your ideas that you sound unintentionally comical.
Yeah, I can imagine that's your perception. Maybe if you think I'm smart - and yet I'm saying things that are comically ignorant - there's something you're missing? Well, you can't really rule it out - can you?

Unless you're wrong, and I'm not smart.

In any case, I'm not all that smart. I think I'm just less burdened by certain rigid ways of thinking than most people.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#46

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 12:16
Just to help DA out here.

The community he's proposing is for people who volunteer to join it and be a productive member of society. It is not meant to be imposed on other (like communism was, for example). In this aspect, you would have a similar mindset to the early kibbutzim in Israel, which were a valid form of communism, since everyone did WANT to be part of it and build it up.

They mostly all disappeared though (or became much more capitalistic).
Pladio is online now

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#47

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,032
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 12:32
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Why do you think there would be no new developments? People are free to develop and improve technology. That's what the resource distribution is about. Again, two categories: basic needs - and luxuries. But luxuries aren't "candy and a Mercedes" - luxuries are resources you can request and then there will be a weight based on a combined voting/petition system. As in, if the resources are available - they will go to those who request it - if it's not contested.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I have no doubt that you have a hard time imagining it. You're living in a world full of conflict - based on resource scarcity and obscene distinction of "human values". What you aren't seeing is what would happen to the human condition if there was no struggle to survive or to live in comfort.
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?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Again, I think you misunderstand. It won't be luxury items as we understand them today. That's why I like to call them "superfluous" items. Mostly, it will be resources from which to PRODUCE luxury items - and the assignment of such resources will go to those most likely to produce something that will benefit others - that's why the voting/petition system is there.
I admit, I lost you there. So you make a distinction between finished luxury products and resources to produce those luxury products?

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?


Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I don't have much to work with. It was just a guess
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" .

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, if you denounce religion - how do you also accept it as a valid way of life? You do understand what denounce means, right?
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.


Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
But it's true that the system requires people to agree with it. That's the voluntary part.
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.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You're asked not to harm or kill other beings
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.
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#48

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 392

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 13:13
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 13:34.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 14:11
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Beer is a luxury item.
Aaaaand I´m out.

What you think about most, is what you become.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#50

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,285

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 14:20
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
Aaaaand I´m out.
It might be available in sufficient quantity - though

That said, alcohol might not make it. That would be down to what we could agree upon.

Personally, I don't think "vices" are necessarily bad for you. It's more about how much you indulge.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 15:31
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
"vices"
I agree with the quotation marks.

What you think about most, is what you become.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#52

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,285

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 15:39
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

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#53

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 392

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: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 19:26
I´ve only skimmed through your propositions (cos´, "c´mon what is this shit", y´know), but I got an impression that you might want to consider presenting this stuff in the form of novel.
IIRC, there´s a book in the making, what´s your "genre" approach to it?

What you think about most, is what you become.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#55

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,285

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 20:42
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
I´ve only skimmed through your propositions (cos´, "c´mon what is this shit", y´know), but I got an impression that you might want to consider presenting this stuff in the form of novel.
IIRC, there´s a book in the making, what´s your "genre" approach to it?
Well, I've considered several ways of putting this down somehow. I thought about trying to write a sci-fi novel - or short story at least. But I fear I just don't have the talent necessary. I think my greatest challenge is stopping myself from stopping. When writing that is, because I always go back after each sentence and try to perfect it. I also think I would bore people to death, because I generally aim for a very serious tone.

So, what I'm doing now is trying to structure my thoughts and create a sensible order for a straight-up non-fiction text. I've written dozens of pages over the years, but they're scattered about and some of it is just rewritten material from a later date. I tend to rewrite a lot more than coming up with new stuff.

I don't know if I'll ever get anything worthwhile out of it, but I feel the concept is worth writing down in some detail and having others look at it. If there's even a chance I can inspire a single person somewhere to take some of the ideas and do something useful with them, I would find that very gratifying indeed.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,886

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 22:52
@DArtagnan

First of all, our understanding of human psychology, behaviour and society is apparently very different so we won't come to any consensus debating this so there is little point in discussing any related topic in more depth. We'll end up limit cycling anyway.

From what I have understood from your concept, there are three main elements that are key, namely:
1. The involved people share the same philosophy agreeing and accepting voluntarily all rules and play by the rules without cheating.
2. All resources are in abundance and readily available
3. There is already an efficient and durable system in place in the form of infrastructures, machinery, centralised computers, etc., for sustaining life.

But let's be honest, every society that starts with those conditions will work. It is when things start to deviate from the nominal condition when it will be apparent whether the system is robust enough. And that is largely where my criticism lies.

Anyway, I watched a video of The Venus Project and now the world concept that you describe is much clearer now. You could and perhaps should have posted that link yourself when you introduced your idea because let's face it, you didn't do very good job at presenting it.

The idea of The venus Project is interesting but it still remains very idealistic and I am not convinced about the feasibility and long term sustainability. Also, the technological investment to achieve this would take decades, at least.

There was one particular comment that the "inventor" of the idea said that struck me as crucial. He says that for the system to work, people need to be challenged in order for them to pursue goals. Of course, it is easier said than done as he didn't provide methods to achieve that, at least not in the video. This is exactly one of the things that I was criticising about your model. The technologocial stagnation and the encouragement of work.

The project assumes the availability and efficient distribution of resources in such a way that everyone will have access to whatever they like. But I think that there is one serious flaw. When basic needs are met, people will turn towards secondary needs and there will always be certain goods that are scarce, this is just inevitable. To take a simple example, a finely handcrafted violin able to reproduce extraordinary sound or a 30 year old high quality wine. You will have a hard time convincing me that people will eventually not start competing over certain goods and/or services. And once you get there, things may follow a different path as previously intended.

One thing that the video doesn't talk about is the human psychologal side and they do not make assumptions about human nature in the same way that you do. So I assume that that is your partcular contribution to this concept .

P.S.

You still owe me an answer to a question that I asked you some time ago that you never bothered to answer.
Asdraguuhl is offline

Asdraguuhl

Asdraguuhl's Avatar
Sentinel

#57

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 392

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 22:56
If it's not too personal a question DArtagnan - what's your day job? You obviously have a very different view of humanity - and the things they're collectively capable of - than what I do.

I myself work in I.T for a medium sized corporate organisation, and so I work with a wide range of people who are - on the face of it - educated and relatively civilized.

But someone keeps blocking the toilet with masses of toilet paper and leaving it overflowing. Someone leaves their rubbish in the meeting rooms. Someone spills their coffee all over the lift floor and doesn't clean it up.

And that's just humans for ya'. They'll get away with whatever they can. We're not capable of a Utopian society because at the end of the day someone is always gonna block the toilet and ruin it for everyone.
badmofo is offline

badmofo

badmofo's Avatar
Tired but happy

#58

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 364

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 23:43
I always said give a person money and power and you will see there true selves.

"Beware the potato for he is easily angered."- Couchpotato
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#59

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 8,740

Default 

November 22nd, 2012, 23:52
Originally Posted by Couchpotato View Post
I always said give a person money and power and you will see there true selves.
Alcohol does the trick too in my experience.
badmofo is offline

badmofo

badmofo's Avatar
Tired but happy

#60

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 364
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » University of Berkeley : Rich people have a greater tendency towards greed
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:54.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch