Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 7:52 am 

Well, a few points occurred to me while looking over this thread. First, no large diversified economy can exist without a currency. There are simply too many diversified products and services to exist on a barter system, particularly when you take into account we are in a global economy now, for better or worse. Historically we do actually have comparative examples to look at, specifically in colonial settings before local (i.e., national) currencies were established. In these cases (Canada throughout the 1840s and 1850s would serve as one example), objects of value that worked as a common currency simple flowed to England and local banks, etc., created their own currencies (i.e., bank tokens) to serve as a medium for exchange. Historic archaeological sites from this time are often loaded with US coins and bank tokens thrown away when laws were passed making them illegal currencies.

An economy without currency is something that not even the most extreme communist, etc., political system has attempted and simply has not existed in any large complex society that I can think of. While you do get some very complicated economic systems in "big man" and chiefdom level societies (far more complex than our own because items that could be called "primitive money" in older studies in economic anthropology circulate in multiple but NOT overlapping spheres of exchange), all state level societies had to develop some kind of currency to facilitate exchange.

I would say that some of the best evidence for why a "moneyless" economy won't work is the observation that none have evolved organically (so far). Plenty of utopian type societies have been attempted from the 19th century to the hippie communes of the 60s. But these all fizzle out. Granted, plenty of small scale barter economies still exist with limited exchange of goods and services. Many First Nations places I know of provide free land for members who don't pay taxes and can procure lots of food (meat, fish, garden vegetables, etc.) plus cooperate in building projects of various kinds (kind of easy since many have been trained in skilled trades but are chronically unemployed). However, the problem with these kinds of societies is that the are considered to be chronically impoverished by many people including the residents who face the dilemma of seeing their kids leave for better prospects. The only thing that keeps these communities still in existence, it seems, is strong religious beliefs, either traditionalist or in some cases strong fundamentalist Christian beliefs (as in a case that hit the papers in Quebec a few days ago) and forms of xenophobia.

Another reason why a moneyless society will not work is simply because there are not enough resources to go around to satisfy everyone. As noted above, there will always be jobs that need to be done and somehow you need to convince people to do these. However, other resources from metals to energy simply do not exist to satisfy everyone in the world. Evening the playing field for everyone will require loss for some (which is currently being felt most, perhaps, in North America and I do think things are only just beginning to go downhill here. Just by way of example, the recent oil war(s) see the benefits going mostly to multinational corporations as they sell the oil to feed China's growing economy while we simply pay higher pump prices and have higher national debt to pay off in the future). Automating everything conceivably possible, however, will require a lot more resources than are currently out of the ground (and therefore a higher environmental cost) plus more energy than is currently available.

Ideology has always been the only thing that has ever worked here whether this be the ideology of religion (most common in the past), the ideology of nation building and nationalism, the ideology of Marx (tried but hasn't worked very well in large nations) or the ideology of capitalism. Historically, religion and nationalism have been ideologies of contributing to something bigger and beyond the individual but these broke down or are breaking down. The ideology of Marx was an artificial construct that rarely took hold without a strong, authoritarian and coercive central government (there are some possible exceptions but these too are relatively small scale and I am not convinced any "worker's paradise" really exists).

Forms of capitalism might be argued to represent to older but more "base" motivation for people. All societies, including the most "primitive" hunter-gatherers, have economic and political systems that allow some individuals to accrue some kind of wealth if the definition of wealth is expanded to include kinds of individual prestige. Even Kalahari hunter-gatherers, often portrayed as being amongst the most "primitive" economically (and described as being the original affluent society and/or "primitive communism") had a symbolic exchange system (known as hxaro) as did aborigines across Australia. While I would argue that these exchange systems functioned as a kind of social storage or insurance for when times got tough, they did allow individuals a accumulate forms of wealth-prestige in specific objects of value that were negotiated for. (Ironically, even "Star Trek" never really escaped a kind of monetary system although once or twice it was stated that they did. There was "credits" for use of holodecks, there was something being gambled in poker games, there was gold-pressed latinum and/or something the "Ferengies" were always dealing in, etc.)

I could go on but I think the bottom line is that in every economy, there will be objects of value of some kind and these will be differentially distributed. The differences in all economies is not in whether or not there is some form of currency but where and how it circulates. Trying to spread resources too evenly (i.e., ultimate forms of communism) has never worked because there always have been and I think most likely always will be individuals who want more of something than everyone else. On the other hand, ultra-capitalism doesn't work either because without some mechanism (social, political or otherwise ideological) to spread resources around, too much accumulates in too few places creating economic "black holes" from which too little "light or matter" escapes. This happened in the past with colonial empires and is happening now, IMHO, with multinational corporate empires.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 8:13 am 

I think what gets overlooked sometimes is that all costs are either wages or profits and that includes taxes. You are paying people to procure resources (whether by mining, farming or even just picking them off the ground), refining those resources somehow, transporting them, selling them, etc. (or you are paying people to dispose of by-products, etc.). Other similar kinds of costs include "wages" for rented equipment, land, etc., that is not owned by the user. Profits can be defined, or often now defined "away", as revenues above labour costs. I say defined away because of simply different means of estimating what would be fair recompense for services, intellectual or other property, etc. Even taxes are simply different means of redistributing resources to pay the labour costs, etc., of administration or other kinds of bureaucratic services, etc. Think of it this way. We do not plough dollar bills back into fields or refill mines with coins, etc. Money either flows or it does not and it flows to some places but not others.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby moranity on June 20th, 2011, 8:14 am 

so, inequality is essential in an economy? is that inequality distributed according to worth?if not, i'd say its obviously immoral.
So, do we live in a meritocracy where effort that benefits society is rewarded fairly? does a company executive work harder than a Peruvian miner?
Also, are we motivated purely by monitary gain?
Innovation did not drop in the USSR, infact they generally did better than the USA at the space race and many other intelectual pursuits, judging from markers such as rockets launched etc.
I'd say people are motivated by compassion, social pride and personal pride.
compassion doesnt need explanation; social pride is "im better than you" and comes in many forms, cliques, tribes, markers of social success; personal pride is what you get when you know you've done that as well as you could.
Money enables people to get social pride, thats about it. So if money is essential for motivation, then it is the only way we can compete, i dont think thats true.
really we are not talking about money as a easy way to exchange goods,, we are talking about scarcity as a tool to motivate people.
moranity
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 8:18 am 

Paul Anthony wrote:The government spends more money on "social programs" and "corporate welfare" than it does on the military.


Well, since I think the prime responsibility of any government is to take care of the majority of its people, rather than a select few or the people outside its jurisdiction, I certainly have no a priori problem with "social programs". In fact, I would say that the measure of any advanced society, now and going back to the beginnings of complex society, is how much is spent on "social programs". Governments that do not take care of their people ultimately fail, deservedly.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 8:35 am 

moranity wrote:so, inequality is essential in an economy?


I would say inevitable because resources are unequal in distribution, in space and/or time (e.g., seasonal fluctuations) and there is inequality in what individuals can and will do. All people at all times had and have to find the means to deal with inequalities in the distribution of resources and inequalities in the capacities and/or motivations of people to acquire, process and distribute resources.

moranity wrote:is that inequality distributed according to worth?


And here is the problem - different definitions of worth and value. That's all and everything.

moranity wrote:does a company executive work harder than a Peruvian miner?


I think to some degree you do have to take into account "investment" in education and personal sacrifice, risk vs. gain from gambling in innovating technology, etc., so as to allow the company executive to get more (I decided to avoid overly subjective ideas like "earn") than the Peruvian miner. However, I think today the problem is that the imbalance has become too much. To go with a modern trope, allowing the exec to get 50 times what the miner gets might be reasonable; getting 500 times as much is too much.

moranity wrote:Also, are we motivated purely by monitary gain?


I would say no. The image of the miser living in squalor with millions of billions stuffed into a mattress or bank account is not common enough. What we see instead are forms of conspicuous consumption for forms of (perhaps perverse) personal prestige rather than more impersonal forms of contributing to something larger (i.e., older "tithes" or taxes, etc., that contributed to larger economic centers of redistribution.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby moranity on June 20th, 2011, 9:13 am 

Forest_Dump wrote:I would say inevitable because resources are unequal in distribution, in space and/or time (e.g., seasonal fluctuations) and there is inequality in what individuals can and will do. All people at all times had and have to find the means to deal with inequalities in the distribution of resources and inequalities in the capacities and/or motivations of people to acquire, process and distribute resources.

i think it would be possible to satisfy basic needs of all, maybe distribution would be a problem, but not huge. It really is not neccessary to threaten people with starvation to motivate them these days.

Forest_Dump wrote:And here is the problem - different definitions of worth and value. That's all and everything.

in a strict meritocracy a person's worth is decided by their contribution to that society and rewarded accordingly. I'd say this is the only basis on which a social system can justify inequality in the distribution of resources. Thats only with a social system though, one that has organisation and goals etc, we don't have such a system, our societies do not make decisions about what is beneficial for society, as a whole. We are just a rag tag bunch, with governments barely seeing to next week. Our societies have no central organisation at all, minds are shaped by merchants through adverts etc, not by society.

Forest_Dump wrote:I think to some degree you do have to take into account "investment" in education and personal sacrifice, risk vs. gain from gambling in innovating technology, etc., so as to allow the company executive to get more (I decided to avoid overly subjective ideas like "earn") than the Peruvian miner. However, I think today the problem is that the imbalance has become too much. To go with a modern trope, allowing the exec to get 50 times what the miner gets might be reasonable; getting 500 times as much is too much.

a Peruvian miner has worked from fifteen, thats his investment, which i'd say is greater than 5 years at university. He gambles every day with his actual life, to do his job
moranity
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 10:35 am 

moranity wrote:i think it would be possible to satisfy basic needs of all, maybe distribution would be a problem, but not huge.


Maybe possible but no one has found an effective means to do so so far. Simply, those who have more than they need almost never readily admit that or give up what they have. How much above minimal levels do you have? I do not know you but do you really need that iPod, the computer, the TV, etc? Ever cook and eat food better than the absolute minimal requirements? Wear nicer clothes than absolutely necessary to keep you from freezing, etc., etc?

moranity wrote:It really is not neccessary to threaten people with starvation to motivate them these days.


No argument. But this appears to be an effective method so it is used by some.

moranity wrote:in a strict meritocracy a person's worth is decided by their contribution to that society and rewarded accordingly.


And this is right back to the basic question. What counts as "merit"? In hunter-gatherer societies, merit is often seen in acquiring big game animals even when small game and gathering as practiced by women contributes far more calories to diet and more reliably, than the big game that has all the prestige. In other (or the same) societies, merit is seen in being able to maintain social order, being a good warrior, establishing and maintaining trade networks (which work to create and maintain social networks that also work as insurance when resources fail or social stresses, etc., build up in one area not in another. In different societies, "merit" is seen in religious skills, bureaucratic skills, etc. In our current society, "merit" is simply most often seen in accumulating massive amounts of wealth which is simply rationalized as creating jobs even when the reality is "down-sizing" or paying people less (i.e. out sourcing, under-mining unions, etc.). No one seems to care how you get your money any more, it is all just about getting the money. There is a "meritocracy" in all societies - there are just differences as to what counts as merit. The only real difference between a meritocracy and a non- is that a meritocracy would, in theory, disallow inheritance because then the individual would not have earned that inherited wealth, status, etc.

moranity wrote:a Peruvian miner has worked from fifteen, thats his investment, which i'd say is greater than 5 years at university. He gambles every day with his actual life, to do his job


Well, having lived in a mining town and knowing individuals (including some family members) who have worked in all sides of mining, I won't debate this one. (Truth be told, in some ways I think I would prefer to work in the mines than in an office cubicle.) However, I will say I do not believe there is any more or less nobility under either a blue collar or a white one. Miners, like CEOs, have a tendency to try to get as much as they can for as little work as they can. One uses unions (local democracy, IMHO) as a tool; the other uses larger governments and elected officials to get "theirs". There is no real difference and what is needed is balance, that's all.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on June 20th, 2011, 11:38 am 

I think the general foundation of this thread is not so complex. It is based upon a process that is obvious and predictable - automation of our resource-procurement and management systems:

ImpactLab.net: Nine Jobs People May Lose to Robots (March 2011) wrote:By 2013 there will be 1.2 million industrial robots working worldwide.

Are humans becoming obsolete in the workforce? All signs point to “yes.”

As IBM’s Watson proved on Jeopardy, robots are becoming smarter than people. They also make fewer mistakes and they don’t get bored.

By 2013 there will be 1.2 million industrial robots working worldwide — that’s one robot for every 5,000 people, according to Marshall Brain, founder of How Stuff Works and author of Robotic Nation.

Robots are currently analyzing documents, filling prescriptions, and handling other tasks that were once exclusively done by humans. Link


It doesn't matter how human societies work, at some point robots programmed to farm and pump water, powered by renewable resources like sun and wind, while being maintained by other robots, will deliver the basic necessities to humans. Those humans will be free to explore scientific or spiritual interests in their free time, and continue to look for ways to reach other planets, solar systems, galaxies, universes, etc. There's plenty for us to get on with.

Automation is just about efficiency, but it seems a certain significant situation occurs when our basic survival needs are covered at no expense to humans - we no longer have to fear for our immediate survival - no longer have to fear that any person will suddenly get drunk on their power and withdraw our resources. Our life is provided at no cost.

I have no idea whether this situation is presently a potential reality, however. I don't know if technology is presently at this stage of development.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 11:47 am 

We do have a long history of the invention and distribution of labour saving devices. And yet we now work longer and harder to get them. So, me being at least somewhat of a cynical pessimist:

Mossling wrote:Those humans will be free to explore scientific or spiritual interests in their free time, and continue to look for ways to reach other planets, solar systems, galaxies, universes, etc. There's plenty for us to get on with.


This will inevitably be thwarted by other individuals complaining about the waste of resources that could go to alternate uses. In fact, arguments have been made that we now have all the resources necessary to feed everyone in the world, etc. But we don't distribute them wisely as there are always some who want more than others whether these be some countries who want more, individuals (e.g., execs) who want more than the others (e.g., the workers), or university departments (e.g., business, medicine, etc.) who want more than others (e.g., philosophy, english, etc.). If you work in an office, look around. I bet there is an "empire builder" somewhere in sight.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 2:44 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:First, no large diversified economy can exist without a currency. There are simply too many diversified products and services to exist on a barter system


The Venus Project does not use a barter system.

An economy without currency is something that not even the most extreme communist, etc., political system has attempted and simply has not existed in any large complex society that I can think of.


In Jaque Fresco's own words, "Communism isn't radical enough".

Communism is a system managed by a form of ideology, which does not necessarily relate to human or environmental needs.

Communism uses money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders and uses indoctrination.

The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons, banking, advertising, stockbrokers, military, and government would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people.

The Venus Project would replace politicians with a "cybernated" society in which all of the physical things would, as quickly as possible, be managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive.

A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.

One of Communism's concerns is the condition of labor and the working class. The Venus Project's major concerns are producing products with limited labor and eventually eliminating labor and at the same time giving people all the amenities of a prosperous, high energy society.

What good is a social system if the end result leads to people in conflict?

The aim is not to produce a society that does nothing but enjoy leisure time. Instead people will be introduced to limitless opportunities to explore, create, participate, and learn.


I would say that some of the best evidence for why a "moneyless" economy won't work is the observation that none have evolved organically (so far).


The makings of one is evolving right now. Sorry, but "it's never happened before" doesn't cut it for me. We could say that about any social idea that tries to end wars, poverty, suffering etc etc.

Another reason why a moneyless society will not work is simply because there are not enough resources to go around to satisfy everyone.


Lack of abundance today is not a resource issue, it's purely a monetary issue.

To transcend these limitations, The Venus Project proposes we work toward a worldwide resource-based economy, in which the planetary resources are held as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants. The current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant, counter-productive, and falls far short of meeting humanity's needs.

We are now in a time where new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system.

If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common.

Like it or not, it is our social processes - political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioral norms - that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage.

The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually(emotionaly).
Last edited by Whut on June 20th, 2011, 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 2:53 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:But we don't distribute them wisely as there are always some who want more than others whether these be some countries who want more, individuals (e.g., execs) who want more than the others (e.g., the workers), or university departments (e.g., business, medicine, etc.) who want more than others (e.g., philosophy, english, etc.). If you work in an office, look around. I bet there is an "empire builder" somewhere in sight.


A resourced based economy does distribute them wisely.

The rest of the post describes a monetary mindframe. Simply put, this way of behaving would no longer be beneficial.


From the book Looking Forward, by Jacque Fresco:

"When little was known about cultural anthropology, sociology, and psychology, it seemed quite valid to resist proposed reforms by saying, "it won't work. It is against human nature." It is difficult for many people to appreciate the fact that what they call "human nature" just doesn't exit. People are like mirrors they largely reflect their surroundings. If people were to come into the world with a fixed "nature" consisting of automatic responses, civilization would be impossible. Like the ants, we would live out our lives in patterns that are modified but little with the passing of time. The wonderful thing about us is that we come into this world with maximum flexibility."


From The Best That Money Can't Buy, Page 89, by Jacque Fresco

Bigotry, racism, nationalism, jealousy, superstition, greed, and self-centered behavior are all learned patterns of behavior, which are strengthened or reinforced by our upbringing. These patterns of behavior are not inherited human traits or "human nature" as most people have been taught to believe. If the environment remains unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur. When we come into the world we arrive with a clean slate as far as our relationships with others are concerned.

In the final analysis, any judgment regarding undesirable human behavior serves no purpose without an attempt to alter the environment that creates it. In a society that provides for most human needs, constructive behavior would be reinforced, and people who have difficulty interacting in the community would be helped rather than imprisoned.

Aspiring to a particular ethical behavior has to do with human aspirations and ideals. Functional morality is the ability to provide a process level to achieve a sustainable environment for all people. By this, we mean providing clean air and water, goods and services, and a healthy and innovative environment that is emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. It is difficult to conceive of any solutions that would serve the interest of the majority in a monetary-based system. None of this can be accomplished without a comprehensive redesign of our social system and eventual replacement of the monetary-based system by a resource-based economy.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 20th, 2011, 2:54 pm 

Whut wrote:The Venus Project does not use a barter system.


The problems are that I have never heard of the Venus Project before. If it actually kicks off and shows signs of working for more than a few people for more than a few years, then maybe it will be worth a closer look. But that is a very big "if" because frankly these kinds of utopian movements come along all the time, possibly reaching their greatest popularity with the hippie communes of the 60s. Proof, as the say, is in the pudding. Don't expect me to sell off everything I own and join this one just yet.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 3:16 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:
Whut wrote:The Venus Project does not use a barter system.


The problems are that I have never heard of the Venus Project before. If it actually kicks off and shows signs of working for more than a few people for more than a few years, then maybe it will be worth a closer look. But that is a very big "if" because frankly these kinds of utopian movements come along all the time, possibly reaching their greatest popularity with the hippie communes of the 60s. Proof, as the say, is in the pudding. Don't expect me to sell off everything I own and join this one just yet.


Utopia... ugh

This is so different.

Forget that stigma, please.

No ones asking you to sell all your stuff off, cmon...

Just asing you too look into it and atleast make an informed opinion, that goes for everyone in the thread.

Jaque Fresco is 94 now, he's being doing this all his life. I have so much respect for this man and urge anyone reading to look into him more. The Venus project is nothing new either. He is also not an idealist, infact he is VERY practicaly minded.

You used the words utopia and hippies and then dismissed the idea. Being someone who has researched mind programming meticulously, this dissapoints me. It's clearly working, very effectively. What a shame.

Idealy, logicaly, you may be right to dismiss it on those premises as you wouldn't want to waste anymore time, but ask yourself who invested and corrupted alot of these movements.
Last edited by Whut on June 20th, 2011, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 20th, 2011, 3:25 pm 

The fundamental flaw in the Venus Project (other than the fact that it reminds me of one of those health food distributor schemes) is that money/wealth has nothing to do with those pieces of paper we carry around. Currency is simply a convenient marker to show our worth. Our worth comes from a variety of sources - minerals, labor, capital, ingenuity, etc. - but is not there simply waiting to be distributed. Heck, there's not even enough potable water for everyone, even if you could magically dole it out.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 3:35 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:And, yes, the Wright brothers were entepreneurs. They were businessmen before they were engineers. Please don't just say things and hope they pass for facts; I'm fairly familiar with both Curtiss-Wright and the history of aviation.

Robots are wonderful. I've worked around them a small bit. I often see the Robotics Institute at CMU. I have attended classes on robots. I bring a little knowledge to the table. The cost of building them, maintaining them, and operating them is substantial. Not all manual work is high enough value to be automated. And, not all manual work can be automated.


Your missing my point. I know they where. But that was not their incentive to fly. The Wright brothers had an intense interest in flying things since childhood when their father gave them a flying toy.

Even if I was wrong about them, I would gladly admit it, but you cannot overlook the scientific research that shows how creativity and ingenuity is not effected by money incentives at all.

Your comments on how it is not feasible to automate everything we can are legitimate, but only within a monetary system. A resourced based economy is a Completely. Different. Paradigm.
Last edited by Whut on June 20th, 2011, 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 3:45 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:The fundamental flaw in the Venus Project (other than the fact that it reminds me of one of those health food distributor schemes) is that money/wealth has nothing to do with those pieces of paper we carry around. Currency is simply a convenient marker to show our worth. Our worth comes from a variety of sources - minerals, labor, capital, ingenuity, etc. - but is not there simply waiting to be distributed. Heck, there's not even enough potable water for everyone, even if you could magically dole it out.


Canady, with all due respect, you don't understand the Venus Project.

Resources are not the issue when it comes to abundance, the monetary system is.

Ofcourse there's physicaly enough water for everyone. You really believe there isn't? If you could show me how, I would appreaciate it.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 3:59 pm 

Mossling wrote:I have no idea whether this situation is presently a potential reality, however. I don't know if technology is presently at this stage of development.


Capability wise, it's all there. The technology itself not an issue what so ever.

The real hurdle is peoples general misunderstanding of human behavior and how it works. Current programming is also a real issue when it comes to things like these.

I honestly don't understand how people find it so hard to believe that people with controll over: TV, Holywood, Education, Politics etc would work together to dumb people down if they are still rewarded for it and it is more profitable to do so.

That's just the pinnacle evolutionary product of any monetary system, no two ways about it. The name of that game is profit.

Any ideas about socialism or capitalism or any economic system are inherently invalid if one fails to understand this simple fact. They've got people chasing their tails.
Last edited by Whut on June 20th, 2011, 4:29 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 20th, 2011, 4:12 pm 

look at the oil producing countries.
they make so much money than nobody in their country needs to work a day in their lives.
yet food clothing and shelter are not free.
education and medical is free though.

thats probably where we are headed.


our productivity has been doubling every 30 years.
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 4:57 pm 

Paul Anthony wrote:This sounds like a utopian idea dreamt up by someone who has never had to earn a living or pay bills.


The Venus Project wrote:Mr. Fresco's background includes industrial design and social engineering, as well as being a forerunner in the field of Human Factors. Mr. Fresco has worked as both designer and inventor in a wide range of fields spanning from biomedical innovations to totally integrated social systems.

The Venus Project reflects the culmination of Jacque Fresco's life work: the integration of the best of science and technology into a comprehensive plan for a new society based on human and environmental concern. It is a global vision of hope for the future of humankind in our technological age.

Professional Positions:
•Design consultant for Rotor Craft Helicopter Company
•Served in the Army Design and Development Unit, Wright Field Dayton, Ohio
•Research Engineer. Raymond De-Icer Corp., Los Angeles, California
•Technical Consultant to the Motion Picture Industry, including Technical Advisor to Camera Eye Pictures, Inc., and the film, The Magic Eye, which won the Robert J. Flaherty Award for creative film documentary.
•Colleague and work associate of Donald Powell Wilson of Los Angeles, the noted psychologist who wrote My Six Convicts.
•Industrial Design Instructor at the Art Center School in Hollywood, California
•Creator of Revel Plastics Company

Inventions and Designs- many of which have been patented and have had wide commercial acceptance:
•Systems for noiseless and pollution free aircraft
•A new aircraft wing structural system, patented by the US Air Force
•An electrostatic system for the elimination of sonic boom for Raymond DeIcer
•Boundary layer control and electrodynamic methods for aircraft control that dispenses with ailerons, elevators, rudders, and flaps
•A three-wheel automobile consisting of only 32 parts
•"The Aluminum Trend House," a prefabricated house designed and developed for Mike Shore and Earl Muntz, 1945
•Designed and developed another prefabricated aluminum house for Major Realty Corporation in collaboration with Aluminum Company of America
•Developed numerous components and systems for architectural construction
•Developed equipment ranging from 3-dimensional x-ray units to electronic surgical instruments for the medical field
•Developed a technique for viewing 3-dimensional motion pictures without the use of glasses
•Designed and built a wide variety of reinforced concrete structures

We have all heard lectures that downgrade the present state of affairs. They speak of such social problems as lawlessness, poverty, racial tension and divorce. But how many of us can recall any of these lectures offering creative solutions to these problems? Mr. Fresco's presentations reflect a serious attempt to illuminate the causes and outline a wide range of constructive alternatives. He does this by presenting a redesign of our culture, one that would emphasize the intelligent use of science and technology to enhance the lives of all people while protecting our environment.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 5:05 pm 

Jacque Fresco: Future By Design (2006)




Future by Design shares the life and far-reaching vision of Jacque Fresco, considered by many to be a modern day Da Vinci. Peer to Einstein and Buckminster Fuller, Jacque is a self-taught futurist who describes himself most often as a "generalist" or multi-disciplinarian -- a student of many inter-related fields. He is a prolific inventor, having spent his entire life (he is now 90 years old) conceiving of and devising inventions on various scales which entail the use of innovative technology. As a futurist, Jacque is not only a conceptualist and a theoretician, but he is also an engineer and a designer. Written by Gazecki, William
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 20th, 2011, 5:53 pm 

Whut wrote:
CanadysPeak wrote:The fundamental flaw in the Venus Project (other than the fact that it reminds me of one of those health food distributor schemes) is that money/wealth has nothing to do with those pieces of paper we carry around. Currency is simply a convenient marker to show our worth. Our worth comes from a variety of sources - minerals, labor, capital, ingenuity, etc. - but is not there simply waiting to be distributed. Heck, there's not even enough potable water for everyone, even if you could magically dole it out.


Canady, with all due respect, you don't understand the Venus Project.

Resources are not the issue when it comes to abundance, the monetary system is.

Ofcourse there's physicaly enough water for everyone. You really believe there isn't? If you could show me how, I would appreaciate it.


Oh I understand it very well. I've been to Broadway and 8th and seen three card monte.

Please provide some evidence for your non-mainstream position that resources are not limiting, but monetary system is.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby moranity on June 20th, 2011, 6:18 pm 

i'd just like to mention that marx's ideal was complete mechanisation and a life of leisure time, so that is the ideal goal of communism.
anyhows, i think a problem we have is that men, mainly, are built to compete, we compete through wealth alot, but it's not the only way to satisfy this need, but we have to cater for this need in any society.
we can always trade locally, use cash, try not to use banks, avoid tv, try not to think "stuff" will solve our problems, in this way we wrestle control from the merchants and create a moneyless society
moranity
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 6:42 pm 

moranity wrote:i think a problem we have is that men, mainly, are built to compete, we compete through wealth alot, but it's not the only way to satisfy this need, but we have to cater for this need in any society.


Mabie the Venus project shares many goals with communism, but that goal was never fully realized, I would infact say that this is the same goal of every mainstream religion, they just didn't know how to implement it. Anyone who seen my posts on Christianity in the religion forums will know what I mean, it all comes down to harmony, and it being a choice: not against our "nature".

Although Marx was a brilliant man for his time, he did not foresee the methods and advantages of a high-tech resource-based economy. Communism used money and labor, it had social stratification and elected officials to maintain the communists' traditions. Most importantly, Communism did not eliminate SCARCITY, nor did they have a blueprint or the methods for the production of abundance. Machine production rather than labor will dominate the future. They also had to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion of fascistic and capitalistic institutions.

-

"Any judgment regarding undesirable human behavior serves no purpose without an attempt to alter the environment that creates it. "

There is no such thing as human nature, or built in natures, in the sense of being a set of predetermined, preprogrammed behaviors and values to which all human beings are predisposed. What we should be concerned with is human behavior and values, which can certainly be changed. If they could not, we would still be living in caves.

The question we should be concerned with is, "What are the factors that shape human behavior?" Human behavior is just as lawful as any natural law. Our customs, behaviors, and values are bi-products of our culture.

If the environment never changes, similar problems and behaviors will never change either. The Venus Project proposes to provide an environment that will bring out the best in human behavior.

The monetary system breeds people to be competative in the way your talking about. It's not just competative behavour, it's advantage taking behavior.

Your conclusion: that we have these things built in; and therefore have to work around them - is backwords rationalization if you understand human behavior.
Last edited by Whut on June 20th, 2011, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 20th, 2011, 7:02 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:Please provide some evidence for your non-mainstream position that resources are not limiting, but monetary system is.


Three-card monty? are you saying TVP is a con? Not sure I follow.

-

At the beginning of World War II the US had only 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. They quickly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year.

The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war.

Why is this only considered in times of war?

Please bare with me: What's the issue concerning the scarcity of drinkable water?
Last edited by Whut on June 20th, 2011, 7:15 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 20th, 2011, 7:06 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:
Whut wrote:
CanadysPeak wrote:The fundamental flaw in the Venus Project (other than the fact that it reminds me of one of those health food distributor schemes) is that money/wealth has nothing to do with those pieces of paper we carry around. Currency is simply a convenient marker to show our worth. Our worth comes from a variety of sources - minerals, labor, capital, ingenuity, etc. - but is not there simply waiting to be distributed. Heck, there's not even enough potable water for everyone, even if you could magically dole it out.


Canady, with all due respect, you don't understand the Venus Project.


Oh I understand it very well. I've been to Broadway and 8th and seen three card monte.


I agree with what you are saying but I think it should be pointed out that EXACTLY THE SAME THING happens with a monetary system.
in theory everyone is equal but in reality some are more equal than others. Monopolies are a good example.
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 20th, 2011, 9:41 pm 

Whut,

I should say that I am in favor of workers sharing the ownership of the means of production, including production of resources. However, capital is still required. The western power dams were largely the result of work done by Bechtel, working on Corps of Engineers projects, but still a private consortium. Without capital and profit there would have been no Bechtel. Without Bechtel, there would have been no Bonneville Dam or Hoover Dam. Without those dams, there would have been no electricity to produce the aluminum that wen into those 90, 000 aircraft each year. The capitalist system has serious drawbacks, and I would welcome a step away from it, but how exactly are you going to fund large projects? And you'll never find Frank Crowe working for civil service. Fundamentally, Crowe was a poor kid who wanted his piece of the pie and he was willing to build the biggest dam ever to get that. He, of course, killed dozens (hundreds?) of workers in the process.

You can't just keep saying that we should have a resource-based economy instead of a monetary system, unless you can state how you'll run this economy. And, by the way, every one of those airplanes was paid for. You'll never fight a war, any war, without profits. I'm pretty much all for that, but it does deep six your example.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on June 20th, 2011, 10:16 pm 

I can accept that some people will always want more than others - think they are entitled to more for whatever reason, however this does not seem to imply that they would rather others would not have the basic necessities required to remain healthy.

Where there is a hyperabundance of basic necessities, with excesses to argue over, there is still an apparent possibility for everyone to be able to remain alive for free. It seems that would be good enough, and not take a significant portion of the resources away from the greedy arguing members of a society...

Think about how long it would take 12 workers to dig a big hole, when one guy in a JCB could come along and do the same work in a few minutes.

Image

Image

Now imagine such machines are equipped with powerful AI and sensors, etc.

We are heading in that direction, it seems:

Image

gizmowatch.com: Robot vegetable gardener senses growing conditions, identifies colors (April 2011) wrote:Kept for display at the International Vegetable Science and Technology Fair in Jinan of China on April 20, this robot has hogged the media’s attention, not by its mere looks but by its performance. It can assess the climatic conditions required for planting besides assessing light and humidity. The another great feature of the robot being the detection of ripe vegetables. With the help of the application programmed in it, detecting the ripe vegetables is a cakewalk to the robot. Further, it will also find out the diseases of the vegetables and can pluck the ripe one. Link


I'm not talking specifically about equal distribution of resources, but primarily about an idea of equal entitlement to survival (for mentally healthy/non-criminal members). It doesn't seem developed societies have any issues with their members being entitled to remain alive now, do they?

Or is there a notion that providing everyone with the basics will leave little excess to fight over and consume for the greedy people?

The Welfare State in the UK seems to go some way to providing such basics, it's just that it seems the money that provides such a standard of living is obtained in a way which is parasitic to the global population as a whole. Maybe the UK could deveop and implement technology that would balance out that situation.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby newyear on June 21st, 2011, 5:39 am 

Mossling, I don't think that anyone would question your altruistic ideas, they are admirable.

What could be questioned is the way to obtain the objective, and if the objective is valid for the human condition.

For example, a lot of aid is pumped into third world countries, but nearly all of it ends up in the pockets of those ruling. So, perhaps a big obstacle would be to change all those polical systems that do not play your tune. Second, if an individual is given something for nothing, like food and shelter, the initiative to find these basic needs will be lost. That is, when, for whatever reason, food and shelter cannot be supplied the individual will react against those doing the supplying. However, if work is used as an exchange for these needs, and there is a break in the job, the individual will react by trying to get another job.

Perhaps you are foreseeing what the future will hold for the technological society. What one must take into consideration is that labour is used as an exchange for food and shelter. If this point is lost, and there is a break in the supply chain, problems with security may be worse than it is today.
newyear
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby moranity on June 21st, 2011, 6:14 am 

Whut wrote:Your conclusion: that we have these things built in; and therefore have to work around them - is backwords rationalization if you understand human behavior.

i think the problem is the environment which produces competative behavour, in males, is the presence of other adult males, something hard to avoid.
I am not saying these behavours can not be overided, but that is swimming against a strong tide.
But, then again, i's easy to accept such behavours and cater for them in harmless ways
edit to add:
I beleive humans are potentially free to act as they choose, but few of us do so
edit to add:
i'd like to see evidence that there is scarcity of food, all i read on the subject says theres a surplus, the world produces more than enough food to give everyone an ample diet
with 2,000 million tonnes of grain produced a year, thats about 500 grammes per person per day, seems a fair bit
i suspect many an inland lake contains enough water for the whole human population's needs, disregarding desalination
also, edit to add:
many huge dams were built in siberia by the soviet union, and huge cities to go along with them, very impressive, with no capital from speculators
moranity
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 21st, 2011, 3:15 pm 

granpa wrote:look at the oil producing countries.
they make so much money than nobody in their country needs to work a day in their lives.
yet food clothing and shelter are not free.
education and medical is free though.

thats probably where we are headed.


our productivity has been doubling every 30 years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Qatar
granpa
 


PreviousNext

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 28 guests