London Olympics: Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters

  Quote

I knew you would bring up renewable energy. Solar panel energy efficiency has improved markedly in the past decade, which is great. For example: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/caltech-plastic-solar-panels-nanowires-low-cost.php

But what are they made out of? Plastic. What is a key component in the manufacture of plastic? Oil. See where I'm going here? Wind turbines - iron and steel plus specialized compounds. The first two take energy to extract from the ground and then refine, the latter chemical compounds take energy to make. Then you have the issue of getting power from wind farms to where it needs to go. Geothermal is good, but is limited by the possible locales of wells.

How do you resolve this problem of plastics being reliant upon the supply of oil? Are you saying there is no known solution because I assume that since you posed no solution to the problem, then you don't have anything to suggest. I would suggest for scientists to research the field of plastics recycling further so that we can use current plastics through recyclable means to become environmentally friendly when constructing things like wind turbines for instance. As for finite resources such as metals - we need to think about replacing scarce metals with substitutions when creating structures which require the same properties which metals offer - and this kind of solution relies heavily on how well scientific research progresses within the next few decades - nanotechnology might play a part in this, hopefully in the near future.

  Quote

As for reading the FAQ, great, I've done it before. It provides no information on how anything actually will get done, just how things might get done. Here's a great example:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=66#19

Admittedly the answer offered to that question is very short to such a complex subject. Decisions would be arrived at by using the scientific method. This means that subjectivity and opinions become eliminated when deciding what happens next with a project. Scientists, engineers, technicians will all play a huge part in the development of projects which are aimed at improving society. Things will get done in this way so that erroneous opinions do not harm the development of scientific data and findings. Things are not done in this way now, for we have politicians and most notably corporations influencing decisions without any scientific evidence or proof to support their narrow minded points of view, because most of the time the political decisions are not made for the betterment of people, they are made because of the profit motive involved (money).

  Quote

You should do some reading on the great depression. Here's an easy primer.

http://facts.randomhistory.com/2009/04/12_great-depression.html

 

Again, the problem is not production of resources, it is redistribution. Very very simply put, market-socialism is where the public owns and manages the means of production, the market takes care of distribution. Bartering because as I've said, you don't get something for nothing.

I will read the link you posted - thanks

What I am saying is where does technology and science come into market socialism? Will this not be adopted in the system you advocate, because after all, it is the scientific achievements that have brought about a lot of great inventions which we all enjoy today, and has ultimately improved the well being of humanity. Would you still allow for people to carry on working in mundane occupations? How would market socialism take into account technological unemployment - whereby machines evidently do a better, quicker and more efficient repetitive task than humans? You're mentioning the distribution factor, but does your system consider the above points I have just mentioned? An economy (distribution of goods and services) can not just be about the distribution of said goods/services, there are many other operations such as decision making, employment, human progression and well being to take into account, and I can't see how bartering considers any of this.

  Quote

The zeitgeist guys think AI is going to change everything, but AI is severely limited, and some very very very smart people have been working on that shit for decades. The outlook ain't bright for the foreseeable future.

Do you have any evidence to support this? From the information I have studied, technological progression seems to be accelerating.

  Quote

Admittedly the answer offered to that question is very short to such a complex subject. Decisions would be arrived at by using the scientific method. This means that subjectivity and opinions become eliminated when deciding what happens next with a project. Scientists, engineers, technicians will all play a huge part in the development of projects which are aimed at improving society. Things will get done in this way so that erroneous opinions do not harm the development of scientific data and findings. Things are not done in this way now, for we have politicians and most notably corporations influencing decisions without any scientific evidence or proof to support their narrow minded points of view, because most of the time the political decisions are not made for the betterment of people, they are made because of the profit motive involved (money).

Doesn't this implicate a problem though? The scientific method often proves one thing factual, the next worthless and regressive....there would be a constant limbo of ideas, also keeping in mind that human nature suggests it is not incredibly easy to adhere to standards of pure logic and reason.

  On 3/7/2010 at 9:26 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  Quote

Admittedly the answer offered to that question is very short to such a complex subject. Decisions would be arrived at by using the scientific method. This means that subjectivity and opinions become eliminated when deciding what happens next with a project. Scientists, engineers, technicians will all play a huge part in the development of projects which are aimed at improving society. Things will get done in this way so that erroneous opinions do not harm the development of scientific data and findings. Things are not done in this way now, for we have politicians and most notably corporations influencing decisions without any scientific evidence or proof to support their narrow minded points of view, because most of the time the political decisions are not made for the betterment of people, they are made because of the profit motive involved (money).

 

 

Doesn't this implicate a problem though? The scientific method often proves one thing factual, the next worthless and regressive....there would be a constant limbo of ideas, also keeping in mind that human nature suggests it is not incredibly easy to adhere to standards of pure logic and reason.

A RBE uses the application of science for human concern - which means that every scientific decision is arrived at through testing/experiments, and the decision will always be made based on it's recognition of how it will improve a situation/project. Every decision is taken to help improve society overall. For example, if a bridge were to be built across a river, why would you hold a voting process (so-called democratic process) on what materials to use, what the nuts and bolts should be made out of? Why not leave all of that to science to decide upon what are the best materials to use?

Re: human nature, please read the posts I was making to ezkeraldean as I strongly feel that a "human nature" has any strong evidence. I think the environment shapes behaviour - look up feral children and case studies of social conditioning. We are all conditioned to think and act a certain way in society through parental influences, circles of friends, the workplace, churches (if from a religious background) - they all imprint on us. Environment triggers genetic propensities - a sudden nature of some kind does not come about in a social interaction, it's what is set up in the environment in the first place that is most important (I'm sorry if that did not make any sense as I'm fairly tired/out of focus this evening) but I hope it came through ok.

I do enjoy talking about this with you guys and exchanging information - I sincerely mean that

  On 3/7/2010 at 9:38 PM, Bread said:

  On 3/7/2010 at 9:26 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  Quote

Admittedly the answer offered to that question is very short to such a complex subject. Decisions would be arrived at by using the scientific method. This means that subjectivity and opinions become eliminated when deciding what happens next with a project. Scientists, engineers, technicians will all play a huge part in the development of projects which are aimed at improving society. Things will get done in this way so that erroneous opinions do not harm the development of scientific data and findings. Things are not done in this way now, for we have politicians and most notably corporations influencing decisions without any scientific evidence or proof to support their narrow minded points of view, because most of the time the political decisions are not made for the betterment of people, they are made because of the profit motive involved (money).

 

 

Doesn't this implicate a problem though? The scientific method often proves one thing factual, the next worthless and regressive....there would be a constant limbo of ideas, also keeping in mind that human nature suggests it is not incredibly easy to adhere to standards of pure logic and reason.

A RBE uses the application of science for human concern - which means that every scientific decision is arrived at through testing/experiments, and the decision will always be made based on it's recognition of how it will improve a situation/project. Every decision is taken to help improve society overall. For example, if a bridge were to be built across a river, why would you hold a voting process (so-called democratic process) on what materials to use, what the nuts and bolts should be made out of? Why not leave all of that to science to decide upon what are the best materials to use?

 

Re: human nature, please read the posts I was making to ezkeraldean as I strongly feel that a "human nature" has any strong evidence. I think the environment shapes behaviour - look up feral children and case studies of social conditioning. We are all conditioned to think and act a certain way in society through parental influences, circles of friends, the workplace, churches (if from a religious background) - they all imprint on us. Environment triggers genetic propensities - a sudden nature of some kind does not come about in a social interaction, it's what is set up in the environment in the first place that is most important (I'm sorry if that did not make any sense as I'm fairly tired/out of focus this evening) but I hope it came through ok.

 

I do enjoy talking about this with you guys and exchanging information - I sincerely mean that

as do I man, always good to talk about this stuff.

with science as the sole ruling concept behind such constructions though....who is the arbiter of science's mandate? at some point along the line there are human beings in control of the "will of science"....it would seem there would be a power struggle inevitable with all facets of human existence...am I making sense? I feel like I am not wording this quite right.

  On 3/7/2010 at 9:11 PM, chenGOD said:

I mean, obviously there are problems with the current economic system, but those stem from greed to a great degree, and as I've said, redistribution of surplus.

Changes need to be made to the market system, which is why I brought up market socialism. The market does work and can provide great efficiency in distribution. Ownership of means of production shouldn't be in the hands of a few.

Oil as an energy source needs to be complemented, and eventually replaced completely. But the problem again is that whole "can't get something for nothing" (unless the zeitgeist guys have discovered cold fusion and just aren't telling?)I'd actually like to see nuclear energy explored. New reactor designs are much safer, and I believe they take care of the problem of disposing nuclear waste by reusing it.

 

This whole "change everything at once" approach is a fantasy.

There are more problems with the monetary system than just greed.

Things do take time, I acknowledge that. I have not once said that a transitional phase will be quick and easy. Everything is progressive, however I can't see any other way that we can go other than down a scientific route if we are to survive and help everyone on the planet - this means eliminating scarcity and liberating boring, monotonous labour to bring everyone up to their fullest potential. I am part of the movement because I find life more fulfilling when heading towards a possible solution rather than talking about problems and not acting upon anything.. hence why I try and do as much activism as I can with my money and time around my area.. I still have to work just as everyone else does. Give it a few more years and I think the movement will have progressed very far in the world. We are kind of like a cushion during the transition, so things do not become as bad as they would under something like martial law. Getting the numbers up as far as supporters are concerned is a primary goal at the moment otherwise we won't be taken seriously.

  Quote

with science as the sole ruling concept behind such constructions though....who is the arbiter of science's mandate? at some point along the line there are human beings in control of the "will of science"....it would seem there would be a power struggle inevitable with all facets of human existence...am I making sense? I feel like I am not wording this quite right.

I think I understand what you mean.. are you saying that human control (such as a lust for power) could interrupt the flow of things undergoing the scientific method? I think that at the moment, a monetary system rewards corrupt, abhorrent behaviour which is why we see fraudulent insurance claims, theft, corporate crime etc.. It might seem normal to us as these events are continuous occurences and we sort of become used to them and call it human nature - this is why many interpret this behaviour as natural, because we have witnessed this for centuries. We, as a movement which supports The Venus Project direction, feel that if a system rewards corrupt behaviour, then corruption will prevail. If you have a system which does not reward this type of behaviour, then what reason or incentive is there to steal a bike or rob a bank if there is no money and resources are made abundant with free access to everyone through means of technology? It's all about finding the root cause of problems and eliminating the incentive to "do bad" in the first place. This current system does not look for root causes - hence why we see prisons being overpopulated as we don't focus on the rehabilitation process enough. - I guess that's a whole other tangent!

  On 3/7/2010 at 9:58 PM, Bread said:

  Quote

with science as the sole ruling concept behind such constructions though....who is the arbiter of science's mandate? at some point along the line there are human beings in control of the "will of science"....it would seem there would be a power struggle inevitable with all facets of human existence...am I making sense? I feel like I am not wording this quite right.

I think I understand what you mean.. are you saying that human control (such as a lust for power) could interrupt the flow of things undergoing the scientific method? I think that at the moment, a monetary system rewards corrupt, abhorrent behaviour which is why we see fraudulent insurance claims, theft, corporate crime etc.. It might seem normal to us as these events are continuous occurences and we sort of become used to them and call it human nature - this is why many interpret this behaviour as natural, because we have witnessed this for centuries. We, as a movement which supports The Venus Project direction, feel that if a system rewards corrupt behaviour, then corruption will prevail. If you have a system which does not reward this type of behaviour, then what reason or incentive is there to steal a bike or rob a bank if there is no money and resources are made abundant with free access to everyone through means of technology? It's all about finding the root cause of problems and eliminating the incentive to "do bad" in the first place. This current system does not look for root causes - hence why we see prisons being overpopulated as we don't focus on the rehabilitation process enough. - I guess that's a whole other tangent!

yeah...i see waht you are getting at....but I am definitely wary of certain elements of humanity craving power regardless of the situation....its like Willy WOnka....everyone gets Gobstopper which is everlasting but one girl wants two.

  Quote

yeah...i see waht you are getting at....but I am definitely wary of certain elements of humanity craving power regardless of the situation....its like Willy WOnka....everyone gets Gobstopper which is everlasting but one girl wants two.

When observing social situations, I now try and think about the reasons that could cause abhorrent, corrupt behaviour in the first place, then try and understand why the person did what they did. Of course everyone gets wary of one another, but you have to be if you're living in a monetary system because everyone is always out for their own gain, chipping off one another.. exploiting each other. I don't blame them, I blame the environment/the system they live in.

well bread, i will say this, youve certainly thought long and hard and I definitely respect your enthusiasm for the cause, I just wish I personally had the same

Tldr; zeitgeist is dumb.

  On 3/7/2010 at 10:34 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

well bread, i will say this, youve certainly thought long and hard and I definitely respect your enthusiasm for the cause, I just wish I personally had the same

Where are you from? I can put you in contact with a local movement chapter so you can meet them if they're doing any events on March 13th. I'll be at the London event next Saturday.

the olympics has been reduced to an std-ridden prostitute grabbing $$$ any way possible to support heroin habit

I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. Of course science and technology have a place in market socialism. They are part of the means of production.

I mentioned bartering because that is part of the market participation in distribution. We will still need people to do things (like code systems, repair machines, artisan labour, cook) as contrary to the zeitegeist movement's belief, not everyone "will engage in all manner of research and development, the creative arts and crafts, travel and exploration, and participation in all of the other limitless horizons the future has to offer." nor is everyone capable of that. Equality in how people are treated, and respect for them as humans does not mean that all people are equal.

The money system as it currently stands is flawed, greed is a major part of that (whether it be greed for profit, power etc. it is still based around wanting more than you have). But power struggles existed long before the idea of market based societies existed. The Venus Project FAQ talks about religion and how people will be free to believe what they want, but cannot force it upon others. What about if I believe in having giant sex orgies with drugs in public. Will I be allowed to do that? If not, how will the "non-decision makers of the non-technical elite" deal with this deviance (which has nothing to do with lack of resources)? Or will that decision be left up to AI*? What if AI decides that allocating resources to that particular religion is not efficient or equitable?

You argue that "Scientists, engineers and technicians will all play a huge part in the development of projects which are aimed at improving society." Yet the Venus Project FAQ clearly states that there will be no utilization of a technical elite in deciding direction for society. Except of course for "An interdisciplinary team of qualified personnel, in line with the project's requirements, will work on automated systems to produce and supply goods and services on a massive scale." So which is it?

There are really way too many inconsistencies here to even start dealing with.

*Please note that AI is still far away from being able to deal with this decision in any meaningful way.

Read this from 2009:

http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/ai/how-long-till-human-level-ai

And realize that all of those things have been said before with similar timeframes.

Sorry, got sidetracked by something else while writing this...

  Quote

Of course science and technology have a place in market socialism. They are part of the means of production.

The application of the scientific method can be extended beyond just the means of production - for instance, using science to arrive at decisions defeats subjectivity and encourages objectivity which can only lead to good things. Opinionated decisions have zero basis. It's time we moved on from this - that means abandoning politics completely because the majority of problems in the world are technical. A true democracy can not be had when you have an economy based on social stratification and most of all competitive behaviour. It's much more efficient to bring cooperation to a project rather than competing against one another when everyone is aiming towards the same goals. This is why having 20 different mobile phone companies in the market, all producing the same products is erroneous because isn't it better if all these companies worked together and shared their ideas to create the best mobile phone available with current technology? Surely more brains are better than one.. I think you know this anyway - but as you can see, these types of discussions require lengthy answers and multiple tangents because there is so much to consider.

  Quote

I mentioned bartering because that is part of the market participation in distribution. We will still need people to do things (like code systems, repair machines, artisan labour, cook) as contrary to the zeitegeist movement's belief, not everyone "will engage in all manner of research and development, the creative arts and crafts, travel and exploration, and participation in all of the other limitless horizons the future has to offer." nor is everyone capable of that. Equality in how people are treated, and respect for them as humans does not mean that all people are equal.

What I am trying to reiterate is that can you see bartering is heading backwards when considering how far we have come technologically? What types of goods/services would the market you are describing consider? If we have the renewable energy to power fully automated hydroponic farms (which is not a fantasy and can be done with current methods, but only limited by cost at the moment because we live in a monetary system), then where is the need to barter with food supplies between people when everyone can be fed? It's very simple to me - I'm not being obtuse, I need you to expand upon this point though. I would like to add that bioplastics seem pretty reliable and could become the replacement for general plastics used at the moment which rely upon oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic

Biodegradable bioplastics are used for disposable items, such as packaging and catering items (crockery, cutlery, pots, bowls, straws). Biodegradable bioplastics are also often used for organic waste bags, where they can be composted together with the food or green waste. Some trays and containers for fruit, vegetables, eggs and meat, bottles for soft drinks and dairy products and blister foils for fruit and vegetables are manufactured from bioplastics.

Non-disposable applications include mobile phone casings, carpet fibres, and car interiors, fuel line and plastic pipe applications, and new electroactive bioplastics are being developed that can be used to carry electrical current.

  Quote

The money system as it currently stands is flawed

This is something we both seem to agree on - but it's flawed from many multiple angles - not just by greed or corruption being rewarded - for example, fractional reserve banking causes for foreclosures/boom and bust cycles/depressions to be built into the system itself because we operate on an economy which is based on debt (Money printed at a debt) coupled with the fact that this system encourages scarcity, discourages abundance and sustainability, encourages mass consumption without considering the environmental consequences, causes social stratification etc... etc... The list of flaws go on and on

  Quote

The Venus Project FAQ talks about religion and how people will be free to believe what they want, but cannot force it upon others. What about if I believe in having giant sex orgies with drugs in public. Will I be allowed to do that? If not, how will the "non-decision makers of the non-technical elite" deal with this deviance (which has nothing to do with lack of resources)? Or will that decision be left up to AI*? What if AI decides that allocating resources to that particular religion is not efficient or equitable?

First of all, the education system in a resource based economy will be entirely different compared to the education we have today. This means that if children are taught to critically think about their surroundings, what benefits would people seek from turning to drugs if their life is more fulfilling because of the free access to pursuits. Their lives would be so much more interesting and fulfilled that I can't even understand why they would resort to the example you've mentioned.. I mean, this current society is incredibly sick that I wonder why I haven't heard of this happening myself in the current monetary system.. why do you think people turn to drugs? Maybe I'm breaking your example down too much psychologically (as I am a psychology student so I can't help it) but the ultimate question is why would someone do such a thing?

Also, remember that all systems of AI would have to be programmed prior to operating within society. If the computer programmer gives the potential for a machine to make complex decisions surrounding fragile human psychological situations, then it will do so.. But, what benefit does the programmer get out of corrupting IT systems? Because these is no financial/monetary related reward. People often become corrupt if the behaviour can be rewarded - and a resource based economy would not accommodate such a reward system.

  Quote

You argue that "Scientists, engineers and technicians will all play a huge part in the development of projects which are aimed at improving society." Yet the Venus Project FAQ clearly states that there will be no utilization of a technical elite in deciding direction for society. Except of course for "An interdisciplinary team of qualified personnel, in line with the project's requirements, will work on automated systems to produce and supply goods and services on a massive scale." So which is it?

Scientists, engineers and technicians are members of the interdisciplinary teams. A technical elite serves no basis in a RBE and my apologies if I did not explain myself properly. There are no leaders or governing bodies but there must be a manner of coordination taking place, to prioritise projects that need to be implemented. It's nothing like we have today. The main purpose of these teams is to constantly optimise society.

  Quote

*Please note that AI is still far away from being able to deal with this decision in any meaningful way.

 

Read this from 2009:

http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/ai/how-long-till-human-level-ai

And realize that all of those things have been said before with similar timeframes.

Admittedly, my general knowledge on the current growth of AI technologies is fairly limited - again thanks for the link, I will take a look at it when I get time on my lunch break tomorrow. I checked the link you gave me regarding the depression in the 30's and it encouraged me to look up further information.

  On 3/8/2010 at 4:12 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ITT: thread derailed by arguments

there aren't any arguments

What a load of rubbish.

  On 3/8/2010 at 10:49 PM, Drahken said:

What a load of rubbish.

thanks for the extra bump

in class now but:

A) science is politicized

B) how do you not see teams of engineers, scientists, technicians as being "technical elite"?

C) we do not have the capability to operate fully automated hydroponic farms.

D) your example of biodegradable plastics: please look at the market section.

E) drug use is fun. It is enjoyable on a completely different level from academic pursuit. that's why.

F) strong AI will be bad for humanity.

G) your example of fractional reserve banking - why was it created? to make people more money. greed.

H) what benefit could a programmer get over corrupting this AI? control over people for means of sexual deviance for example.

The earth is a closed system. You can't get more out of it than what already exists. TO make something, anything, requires energy. You can't create energy, merely change it's form.

Ok, I think it's best to define a few terms in my answers to save on any misinterpretations - after all, we're dealing with language which can be very subjective.

  Quote

A) science is politicized

politicize generally means to make something political. I realise you're at work right now, but I need to see a more detailed specific answer as to why you feel science and politics go hand in hand? Political decisions are not necessarily based on evidence, accurate data or scientific studies. Political decisions can be distorted by human emotion and opinions over a particular matter. However, scientific decisions are arrived at with a certain level of objectivity, meaning results + data after a scientific experiment have been thoroughly tested to prove a theory. Of course, in a RBE, the scientific decisions that are arrived at will affect human beings, but the whole idea of a resource based economy is that science is applied for social concern, so every decision arrived at through science is applied to improving people's lives, and not the other way round.

the definition of political: Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state

None of the above words relate in anyway to a RBE = there is no "state", no "government" in the conventional sense (meaning the only government in existence would be a government based on automated resource management - the only so-called governing that needs to be considered is resource management and allocation).

  Quote

B) how do you not see teams of engineers, scientists, technicians as being "technical elite"?

elite is generally defined as: A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status

Firstly, a RBE operates on an open system whereby everyone has access to free education to bring about the best in people, and to raise people up to their fullest potential. There would be no snobbery, and people would be invited to join interdisciplinary teams and to join technically trained people to help improve society. In the future, our value systems will change to one which aims towards the betterment of society. People's incentive would be to do good for everyone around them. An "elite" implies a closed off group - but this is not compatible with the basis of a resource based economy. Secondly, there would be no divisionary notions. Everyone would be on the same platform as far as actual living needs are concerned. There's no differential advantages when it comes to resources, as resources would be held as the common heritage of all the world's people. Elite implies stratification and there would be no resource stratification or allocation priority to certain individuals.

  Quote

C) we do not have the capability to operate fully automated hydroponic farms.

http://www.homegrown-hydroponics.com/ watch the first video on this page

Why can't this system be implemented on mass scale? It can't in a monetary system because of cost, but we have the resources available so it can be done in a RBE system. There is much more information on this if you look further.

  Quote

D) your example of biodegradable plastics: please look at the market section.

When you have the time please elaborate?

  Quote

E) drug use is fun. It is enjoyable on a completely different level from academic pursuit. that's why.

I have a different view on drugs - if you make life interesting, why would you resort to taking drugs when you can have fun through other activities which do not necessarily harm your health?

  Quote

F) strong AI will be bad for humanity.

All depends on the uses of AI and the programming purposes. If AI is programmed to do "bad", it will do just that.

  Quote

G) your example of fractional reserve banking - why was it created? to make people more money. greed.

Yes, fractional reserve banking is a quick way of expanding the money supply for the benefit of wealthy banking institutions. Money which is loaned out to people from commercial banks is not actually backed by anything tangible - in other words, money is created out of thin air which will, inevitably, cause consequences in the market.

  Quote

H) what benefit could a programmer get over corrupting this AI? control over people for means of sexual deviance for example.

And someone with a psychological, sexual disorder of some kind will be treated and helped. There's none such thing as security in any social system however safeguards can be put in place such as a relevant education - whereby children learn how to communicate and relate to each other from an early age so that they grow to respect one another. Sounds like fantasy, but you must remember that our education system at the moment does not promote this e.g. when you mark a test, and one kid gets an A and another gets an F, jealousy is created, which causes friction between the children in the class so they lose the ability to relate to each other. If children learn how to relate to one another properly, the likelihood of your description being of sexual deviance coming about in their lives when they grow up is limited on a scale of probability. We all have a cerebral cortex, we're capable of critical thought processes. People seem to forget this - and this is why we are able to keep our animal behaviours suppressed in everyday social interactions - because our brain prioritises the activities going on in the outer areas of the brain which relate to conversation skills, building upon human relationships etc.

  Quote

The earth is a closed system. You can't get more out of it than what already exists. TO make something, anything, requires energy. You can't create energy, merely change it's form.

Energy can be harnessed if done properly. Do you agree that energy is in abundance if harnessed correctly?

  Quote

  On 3/9/2010 at 12:23 AM, Bread said:

E) drug use is fun. It is enjoyable on a completely different level from academic pursuit. that's why.

I have a different view on drugs - if you make life interesting, why would you resort to taking drugs when you can have fun through other activities which do not necessarily harm your health?

 

surely ZeitgeistWelt would guarantee its citizens the right to enjoy themselves however they wanted? isn't that the point? if people want to take drugs, who in ZeigeistWelt can stop them?

i remember making this point with you before about people who enjoy baking as a hobby. if AI takes over food production, what room is left for people who enjoy making food? you made some mildly dehumanising statement about them being educated in a way to make them see their previous hobby as pointless, and i was a bit put off

Sorry bread, I can't see this going anywhere.

Some people you could educate all you want and they will never have the technological capability to participate in any meaningful way about the best way to construct a database management system (me for example, I am a raving idiot at maths).

What about psychopaths? I'm doing some reading on individuals who batter women, and their response is completely different from what is considered "normal". They weren't abused when they were younger, they didn't learn this through watching their fathers beat their mothers and yet they persist in this activity. No amount of correctional treatment will cure them. What happens then?

And who decides what a sexual disorder is anyways? Do we decide that people who like small breasts need "re-education"?

Drugs: I'm pretty educated, participate in many activities which reward my life (sports, music making, chatting with friends, reading books, listening to music, cultivating a taste for fine arts etc.) and yet I still enjoy using drugs (especially marijuana and alcohol). I'm fully aware of the health risk. Would you deny me the choice to partake in these activities?

Strong AI will overcome programming limitations to make fully autonomous decisions. It is inevitable that it would at some point decide that humanity is its own worst enemy.

You can't create the hydroponic farms on a mass scale because it is energy inefficient.

Biodegradable plastics make up a tiny fraction of the plastics market. Almost insignificant. To effect any great change would require a massive shift of resources that would render the production untenable (because resources are not limitless due to the energy restriction).

When you take energy from one area of production to improve production in another area, there will be a necessary loss of production rate in the first area.

Science is politicized - look at the climate change issue.

I wasn't at work, I was in class. I try not to work very much, and I'm in school to improve my opportunities for making more while working less.

  On 3/8/2010 at 11:24 PM, chenGOD said:

 

The earth is a closed system.

uh... no, there's that thing called the sun.

I've said this before bread but i think you should stop making your points assuming people don't understand the principle behind the Venus project. everyone gets it. it's just that 1) it doesn't seem viable or any time soon and 2) the logic behind it isn't sound. we all see you just repeating over and over the ideas that haven't convinced anyone but a few zeitgeist fans.

this idea that we can all in the world live in abundance is unjustified, and this assumption that if we lived in abundance then all abhorrent behavior would cease to exist is nothing more than that; an assumption.

  On 3/9/2010 at 10:32 PM, GORDO said:

I've said this before bread but i think you should stop making your points assuming people don't understand the principle behind the Venus project. everyone gets it. it's just that 1) it doesn't seem viable or any time soon and 2) the logic behind it isn't sound. we all see you just repeating over and over the ideas that haven't convinced anyone but a few zeitgeist fans.

 

this idea that we can all in the world live in abundance is unjustified, and this assumption that if we lived in abundance then all abhorrent behavior would cease to exist is nothing more than that; an assumption.

what are your solutions for a better world?

  On 3/9/2010 at 10:24 PM, GORDO said:

  On 3/8/2010 at 11:24 PM, chenGOD said:

 

The earth is a closed system.

 

uh... no, there's that thing called the sun.

I was hinting at this when emphasising the harnessing of energy from the sun, as well other renewable energy sources

The sun is there for sure. But it takes energy to manufacture solar panels, as well as raw resources. The resources are from a closed system.

  Quote

Some people you could educate all you want and they will never have the technological capability to participate in any meaningful way about the best way to construct a database management system (me for example, I am a raving idiot at maths).

Not everyone would want to contribute technologically and they don't have to. We're promoting a free system where people can pursue whatever avenues they are interested in. I don't believe people are born with a natural talent to create excellent database systems as your brain, prior to you being born, never had any preconceived notions of such a construct nor are there specific genes called "database management expert". Everything is learned when it comes to technical methods and processes.

  Quote

What about psychopaths? I'm doing some reading on individuals who batter women, and their response is completely different from what is considered "normal". They weren't abused when they were younger, they didn't learn this through watching their fathers beat their mothers and yet they persist in this activity. No amount of correctional treatment will cure them. What happens then?

And who decides what a sexual disorder is anyways? Do we decide that people who like small breasts need "re-education"?

People with psychopathic tendencies have to be helped, there's no doubt about it. What's the point in punishment when you're going to get more out of a situation by helping the individual? We no longer live in the dark ages where people were believed to be possessed by the devil. Psychological problems should be assessed scientifically whilst always bearing in mind the well being of the person being treated.

There's none such thing as "re-education". Education is a constant process, where you're continuously expanding upon existing knowledge. Where does the "re" fit in if every bit of education, no matter what it is, is there to expand upon what you already know? I'm picky about words like that because it's such a loaded term, and people have silly notions of such a word like "re-education".

  Quote

Drugs: I'm pretty educated, participate in many activities which reward my life (sports, music making, chatting with friends, reading books, listening to music, cultivating a taste for fine arts etc.) and yet I still enjoy using drugs (especially marijuana and alcohol). I'm fully aware of the health risk. Would you deny me the choice to partake in these activities?

I think that as long as people are educated about the health effects of drugs, then there's nothing wrong with such substances becoming freely available. It's up to the individual whether they choose to take drugs. They can not be outlawed because that would not make for a free society.

  Quote

Strong AI will overcome programming limitations to make fully autonomous decisions. It is inevitable that it would at some point decide that humanity is its own worst enemy.

AI could expand upon it's own knowledge and awareness, that is an important possibility to note, however, the creation of such technology has a programmer which sets about the potential a machine might have when fully operational. If at the programming stage, the machine has a programmed propensity to do erroneous actions, then ofcourse that's when problems arise. However, machines do not have feelings or emotions like we do. They don't have a gut feeling before taking an action further. I strongly feel that the programming stage is critical, and all technology needs to be designed to help humanity, not work against it. I don't know whether Hollywood with films like Terminator and I-Robot perpetuate this silly notion that gets into people's minds that AI is inherently a bad direction. Their called "Hollywood hacks" for a reason.

  Quote

You can't create the hydroponic farms on a mass scale because it is energy inefficient.

Biodegradable plastics make up a tiny fraction of the plastics market. Almost insignificant. To effect any great change would require a massive shift of resources that would render the production untenable (because resources are not limitless due to the energy restriction).

When you take energy from one area of production to improve production in another area, there will be a necessary loss of production rate in the first area.

I'm sorry but I'm not understanding this fully. Explain what you mean by a massive shift of resources?

  Quote

Science is politicized - look at the climate change issue.

Money can be made off the climate change issue, thus causing for it appear as a "politicized" topic of discussion - carbon tax, more jobs within government to tackle it, corporations stepping in to appear "green" and environmentally friendly with their products and ideas for a profit etc..

  Quote

I wasn't at work, I was in class. I try not to work very much, and I'm in school to improve my opportunities for making more while working less.

Good for you - I am also studying (part time though) mainly in the evenings as I balance a course in Psychology alongside full time working hours. I would love to leave work to pursue education full time because I really enjoy learning but it's not practical with my current financial situation.