Forced birthcontrol

Originally posted by Zenarctic
That is an absolutely relevant question, and I must apologise for assuming you didn't really know what we were talking about. I'm often confronted by ignorance and superficial understanding of the resource based economy, that forces me to respond in the most basic sense, hoping to get people to a level of understanding where they would ask me questions of is ingeniously eliminated through automation technology.

Ok, so first thing first.

#1 On scarcity.

I disagree on several levels here. First, on the issue that only Actual Scarcity (nice breakdown, by the way) matters. As you say relative scarcity implies that the RBE will be able to use only some resources at a limited amount per year. Some not-as-good (by definition) alternatives can be found but still this implies that there will be differentiated goods and some people will get the better ones. Second, by far the biggest and most important scarce resource of all is...energy. The very notion of the dangers of peak oil (underlying so much of the justification for a RBE) are because alternatives exist but nowhere near give us the bang for the buck that oil gives us. I don't see how RBE solves that issue. In fact, as long as the energy produced is not infinite, energy will ALWAYS be scarce because the more energy you have, the more you can do and so the more you'll use. Energy is by far the biggest barrier to growth in any economic system so it's unavoidable that dealing with its scarcity is essential. In the videos there seems to be a lot of fantasizing about this, including some large underground storages for wind farms. There is no good storage of energy. The way energy is stored today is by converting it to another means (thermal, pumping water back up the dam, etc.) that allow more production later, but with quite large losses.

But let me restate: energy scarcity is unavoidable AND it generates scarcity in all other goods. If you need to prioritize energy spending, you need to prioritize production hence scarcity arises unavoidably in all areas of production as production of one thing implies not producing another.

#2 On money
Zeitgeist makes a hash of describing the monetary system. We've been there in other threads (where me and telerion debunked Money Masters videos) and the amount of misinformation and propaganda is just huge. Anyway, you don't go there and kudos to you, but you focus on the real question here. Does money solve the problem? Money does solve the problem of prioritization, but with an important caveat (which I'll get back to later). Think about it. Everybody receives the same amount of money and prices reflect availability. People would be able to use this money to prioritize spending. If you really want something you'd be willing to pay more and if you don't, then you will use that money for other things. So in the question of prioritization of your spending, money works pretty well. The caveat is, as you mention, that wealth (not just money) is distributed unequally and so many people do not have enough for this prioritization mechanism to work properly. But given a sufficient amount of money and priced choices, prioritization works nicely because of varying willingness to pay.

It seems to me that, in the end, what RBE people proposes are actually solutions for side products of the current system. Side products that are important (wealth inequality, waste, overconsumption of resources, class stratification, etc.) but that are fixable through proper governance. The arguments attack libertarian capitalism on mostly the same issues that most social democrats do but add the ilusion of the end of scarcity.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, so first thing first.

#1 On scarcity.

I disagree on several levels here. First, on the issue that only Actual Scarcity (nice breakdown, by the way) matters. As you say relative scarcity implies that the RBE will be able to use only some resources at a limited amount per year. Some not-as-good (by definition) alternatives can be found but still th ...[text shortened]... he same issues that most social democrats do but add the ilusion of the end of scarcity.

That's a thought provoking reply, thank you. Off the top of my head I have a problem with a few things you mention here, but I can't seem to find the time this week to sit down and write properly, so I hope you'll still be around after the weekend.

Also, it would be interesting to read the threads you talk about where you and telerion debunks the money masters video (were these way back or recent threads?) I also think the Zeitgeist movement puts too much focus on today's monetary system, and the politics on top of it. Though I agree with the movement in essence (that money through what they represent has the propensity to corrupt and hold back societal progress - and that money really isn't needed any more) I don't necessarily believe money in itself is a bad thing. It's the same as with technology I suppose, it's all a matter of how we allow it to be applied.

I will respond properly to your post soon enough, but for now, let me just say it's refreshing to be in a civil discussion where I might actually learn a thing or two. You're obviously an intelligent and outspoken person, and even if we should end up on opposite sides of the issue at hand, you should know I always respect that in others.

But for now, have a good time.

Originally posted by Zenarctic
That's a thought provoking reply, thank you. Off the top of my head I have a problem with a few things you mention here, but I can't seem to find the time this week to sit down and write properly, so I hope you'll still be around after the weekend.

Also, it would be interesting to read the threads you talk about where you and telerion debunks the money nd, you should know I always respect that in others.

But for now, have a good time.

No worries, take your time. 🙂

The Money Masters thread started very well, but was derailed pretty fast with nobody really taking telerion's challenge to defend the claims he identified as false. Thread 110854

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, so first thing first.

#1 On scarcity.

I disagree on several levels here. First, on the issue that only Actual Scarcity (nice breakdown, by the way) matters. As you say relative scarcity implies that the RBE will be able to use only some resources at a limited amount per year. Some not-as-good (by definition) alternatives can be found but still th ...[text shortened]... he same issues that most social democrats do but add the ilusion of the end of scarcity.

Hope you're still there, Palynka. I finally have an hour to sit down, take a deep breath, enjoy some coffee and compose a proper response. Sometimes, life is good to me. 🙂

Alternative not-as-good (by definition)...

This had me raise an eyebrow. Why do you assume that by definition an alternative has to be less good (I assume you mean in quality)? When I say alternative (and it's my bad not to have been more specific), I mean as good as, if not better. Otherwise, the alternative is more of a lesser substitute. Subtle difference? I don't think so. In fact, most natural resources can be reproduced synthetically (if not today, through research soon enough). That is why I dismissed this category of scarcity in reply to your argument. You'll find, if you look a little deeper, that few natural resources are so scarce and so hard to reproduce that sharing actually becomes a problem (though if you or anyone else can name any such resources - seeing myself with the foot in the mouth possibly - I'd gladly hear about them). My response was rather hypothetical in that maybe there will be such a resource, and what do we do then?

Energy production

If I understand you correctly here, you mean to say that no matter how much energy we manage to produce, there'll always be a demand for more. I disagree with that. We'll use as much energy as we need to power our current technology. The truth is that there are many more sustainable means of powering different gadgets and what have you, and some are possible simply through choosing the proper materials. This is dealt with in great length in the venus project, so I won't get into that here.

http://thevenusproject.com/

Suffice it to say, there's no reason to think we can't accomplish more with less energy if we choose to develop the proper technologies. As an example, consider a coal plant. Mining for coal, transporting it to the plant, heaving it into furnaces; it takes a lot of energy to produce the electricity through fossil fuels. Hence, while you may get more energy out of a coal plant than you would out of the equivalently sized wind farm (though that is a truth slowly fading with new research), an automated wind farm (as an example - where weather makes it beneficial) will cost much less in the long run (both environmentally and in production cost). This means, that by tapping into renewable sources of energy on a larger scale and automating the production (demand and response, maintenance and so on) we will save coal for other uses and greatly decrease the "cost" of energy production. This is not a fantasy, ideal, or utopian vision. It is quite possible with today's technologies.

Money

The only part where I would be inclined to agree with you is the money business. The Zeitgeist movement does make a lot of noise concerning the monetary system (and I now see where much of that information comes from - thank you for that). I wouldn't pretend to be fully informed on all the details and facets of monetary economics. The truth is, as brilliant as the monetary idea is, it's just no longer necessary, to maintain and even better the quality of life for all of mankind. We now have the technology to support the entire earth's population with all their basic needs and far beyond, through intelligent use of our technology, that I just don't see the point of allowing the entire society to be controlled by money and profit incentives. It's not that I don't think such a system could work (to a degree - and maybe there are applications for using some kind of limited bartering system even in a resource based economy - very specialised, man-made items for instance), it's just that it seems that the inherent profit incentive holds back current progress. There's no doubt we can use automation technology for just about every repetitive job we can think of, and the only reason we don't go all the way, is because that would mean a massive unemployment problem. Unemployment is really only a problem in a society where you have to "earn your keep".

It seems to me that, in the end, what RBE people proposes are actually solutions for side products of the current system...

This is exactly what rbe attempts to solve. By targeting the root of all these problems, rather than attempting to deal with them.

You state that the proper governance could help deal with these issues, and I concur. However, when you give a small group of people a certain amount of power to govern (and burden them with the responsibility of the well-being of) the rest, prioritisation gets quite naturally distorted. Instead of worrying about the environment and well being of all people everywhere, you then have to make sure "your own" group and local environment is cared for first. By doing that, you immediately set the ground stage for the social stratification that is at the very bottom of all the problems that the governmental model is there to control.

What we've come to understand is that the real culprit is the social stratification and that it comes about through competition and inability to solve social issues in a satisfyingly equal manner. A society that (through any means) support that basic premise, will be a society with these kinds of problems.

Summary

I don't have time to sweep through the text and clean it up properly. I'm sure I've repeated myself here and there, and it all comes off as a rant of some kind, but I'm hoping you'll be able to see this for what it is. The bottom-line, in case I bored you to tears with the above, is: (1) I don't see how the monetary system is required now that automation technology can do so much for us, and (2) I do believe fully that in whatever areas we currently may come short, scientific research and application will cover, given the possibility.