- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadA post scarcity society is by definition space faring, with many many space habitats, so owning the spaceship would be like
And what would you do with your very own spaceship? Travel to your very own planet in your very own solar system in your very own universe?
You only want a space ship because you want the status that goes with it.
[b]My point is that the draconian tyrannical governments needed for communism whilst in an age of scarcity are worse than the ills
of capi ...[text shortened]... most western countries have,
to greater or lesser extents.
I generally agree with that.[/b]
owning a car, or private jet today. It has potential practical value in such a society.
It's communism in that the resources are shared communally, there are no wealthy people who have more resources than
anyone else. The resources are still finite, so there are restrictions on resource use, they are just so generous you never
actually reach them. Note: if you did have some project you wanted to embark on that required more resources than your
personal allotment, you could either gang together with other like minded people to complete the project, or request a share
of the societies governments free production capacity. (presuming here some sort of oversight to make sure your not using
the manufacturies to make an army or terminator robots or similar) There are many options for the politics of such a society,
my personal favourites being variations on democracy.
The production capacity would be (in this system) owned collectively by the people, (also communistic) but automated so
its not run by the people. There are no exploited people, or people who need paying.
Again I recommend looking up so examples in sci-fi literature. The culture being my personal favourite example, but an exact replica
of the culture probably involves a different set of laws of physics. But the basics of the society are real world compatible.
I think post scarcity is a good goal to have as a society, even if it turns out not to be actually possible.
Although I do think it is practically possible to achieve, eventually.
And setting it as a goal helps shape minds into thinking about how we are different and what needs to be done to change that.
the main thing is that when I think, what would a communist civilisation look like, [that has actual people in it, not imaginary
perfect, nice people that don't exist], that would be nice to live in, I always come up with something that looks like a post
scarcity society, or very close to one.
Whether a post scarcity society is possible or not, that fact that the only way I see of making communism work is in such a society,
convinces me that the alternative, in moderation, is the only viable option, until such a society, if ever, is reached.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadCapitalism played the historic role of building up the means of production. This makes a "post-scarcity" society possible, but does not bring it into practice. As you have correctly noted, capitalism even becomes a hindrance toward its realization.
Maybe that is because you don't know of any truly communist countries.
But of those claiming to be communist, how do you measure success? The USSR was very successful by some accounts, so is China, and even Cuba.
But I am not trying to support communism, all I said was that capitalism results in scarcity. Pure capitalism always results in the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettQuite possibly, but we have a long long long way to go before that is the issue.
Capitalism played the historic role of building up the means of production. This makes a "post-scarcity" society possible, but does not bring it into practice. As you have correctly noted, capitalism even becomes a hindrance toward its realization.
For one thing, as I have said, to qualify we would have to be massively space fairing,
as well as completely automate our production/mining/food growing capacity.
We are heading in that direction, but we are a long way off it at the moment.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis idea that we can produce more goods than we could ever desire is nonsense. Mankind's needs are really very limited. A little food, shelter and companionship is all that is necessary. The more "advanced" a society becomes, though, the more its artificial desires are multiplied. Mankind suddenly finds he wants, and cannot do without, a whole range of goods he previously had no need for. So we adopt a system of industrial production in an attempt to close the widening gap between our growing desires and our ability to meet them. Of course, the more we produce and the more advanced society becomes, the more our artificial desires multiply, forever outpacing our ability to satisfy them. Thus the productionist mode of society is one of chronic dissatisfaction. And as long as we perceive the planet's ability to provide for our desires as being unlimited, then our artificial desires will continue to multiply until the planet can, in fact, no longer bear the burden we have placed upon it.
And again I have to disagree.
Plus again for the definition of a post scarcity society, I/you/we have to work to earn enough to pay for the very food we eat.
Post scarcity, you don't, its provided free, because it can be produced in greater quantities than people could possibly eat, with
no human labour required.
You don't seem to get at wha ...[text shortened]... with socialism, which is what most western countries have,
to greater or lesser extents.
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou have said a lot of things that make no sense. Why do we need to become "massively space faring"? So we can presumably find more planets to exploit and despoil once we've made this one uninhabitable?
Quite possibly, but we have a long long long way to go before that is the issue.
For one thing, as I have said, to qualify we would have to be massively space fairing,
as well as completely automate our production/mining/food growing capacity.
We are heading in that direction, but we are a long way off it at the moment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettwho said anything about other planets?
You have said a lot of things that make no sense. Why do we need to become "massively space faring"? So we can presumably find more planets to exploit and despoil once we've made this one uninhabitable?
There is enough materiel in the solar system to build habitats enough to house
a few Trillion, with a T, people. [Short Trillion, Conservative NASA estimate.]
Earth is currently over populated, it is the root of many of our problems.
The optimum population for earth is probably around 1 maybe 2 billion at a stretch.
We are heading towards an expected plateau of around 10 billion (plus minus a few billion).
Also to have the massive resources to qualify for a post scarcity society we would need
things like asteroid mining to produce the raw materials in large enough quantities.
Certainly if we want to do so without destroying the earth.
Planets are sucky places to try to live/terraform, man made habitats are far better.
And the idea is to reduce the stress on this planet, not reduce it to waste and move on.
The massively space faring bit is that to get earth's population down to a manageable level
will require putting of the order 9 billion people into space.
This requires (not using magic handwavium anti-gravity tech or similar) space elevators,
and nuclear/AM propulsion systems.
Which are in the realms of really difficult but not impossible technology.
As I say, a post scarcity society may not be practically possible, although I think it is.
But it would almost by definition require space travel/habitation/resource harvesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
http://www.futurehi.net/phlebas/text/cultnote.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rwingettI don't agree with your premise, and thus your argument.
This idea that we can produce more goods than we could ever desire is nonsense. Mankind's needs are really very limited. A little food, shelter and companionship is all that is necessary. The more "advanced" a society becomes, though, the more its artificial desires are multiplied. Mankind suddenly finds he wants, and cannot do without, a whole range of goo ...[text shortened]... to multiply until the planet can, in fact, no longer bear the burden we have placed upon it.
I would recommend reading the links provided in my last post and coming back,
as I don't think you fully comprehend what it is I am talking about.
Also I would point out that I think the only and best option for our continued survival
is massive expansion into space.
Sitting still on one titchy little planet is a recipe for extinction.
Just ask the dinosaurs....
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYour words betray you.
You provide the following two quotes on your profile page:
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
- Andre Gide
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
The second one is the only wise quote.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think we are operating off a different definition of belief.
I like the cut of your jib.
The statement 'the only sensible position is to have no beliefs' can't possibly
be valid under the definition I know of for belief.
Thus I am curious as to what you understand the word belief to mean and your
understanding of why the above phrase would be good?
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI start with Decartes; I think therefore I am. But is it me that thinks this? I think that it is mostly likely me, but I don't think I can be 100% sure. I could choose to believe that it is me, but it seems sufficient to accept that it is probably me and work from that basis. I am given to understand that it is possible to go beyond this and appreciate that there is in fact no 'me' at all, and that this delusion arises consequent to thought. I don't believe this either, but I (ha, 'I'😉 find myself intrigued by the possibility. The more I learn, the less I know; I now know very little, and yet there is so very much more still to learn! This could be intimidating, so I make tea.
I think we are operating off a different definition of belief.
The statement 'the only sensible position is to have no beliefs' can't possibly
be valid under the definition I know of for belief.
Thus I am curious as to what you understand the word belief to mean and your
understanding of why the above phrase would be good?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwell that was entertaining.... but not very helpful....
I start with Decartes; I think therefore I am. But is it me that thinks this? I think that it is mostly likely me, but I don't think I can be 100% sure. I could choose to believe that it is me, but it seems sufficient to accept that it is probably me and work from that basis. I am given to understand that it is possible to go beyond this and a ...[text shortened]... yet there is so very much more still to learn! This could be intimidating, so I make tea.
Would I be correct in summarising your position as...
Truth and knowledge are absolutes...
We can't know anything absolutely...
We should only believe things that are known to be absolutely true....
But as nothing can be known with absolute certainty...
We shouldn't believe anything....
This is what I take to be your position from your post...
If this is wrong could you please explain it in, perhaps a less entertaining, but easier
to interpret and understand, plain English.
14 Sep 11
It really comes down to faith. The non theist can no more prove rationally that God doesn't exist then the theist can prove he does. It seems to me that arguing by use of reason about the existence or non-existence of God is largely fruitless.
I have a friend who describes himself as a devout atheist. At first I thought he was joking until I realized what he meant was that he could not prove that God doesn't exist. He has faith that God doesn't exist and I have faith He does. I think its cool that even though we have diametrically opposed views, we can still share the concept of faith.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rickgarelI don't have to prove god doesn't exist to not believe in him/it.
It really comes down to faith. The non theist can no more prove rationally that God doesn't exist then the theist can prove he does. It seems to me that arguing by use of reason about the existence or non-existence of God is largely fruitless.
I have a friend who describes himself as a devout atheist. At first I thought he was joking until I realized wh ...[text shortened]... hat even though we have diametrically opposed views, we can still share the concept of faith.
Belief IN god is a positive statement that needs to be justified.
Why do you believe in god?
What is your justification for your belief?
You have a burden of proof to justify your position.
Atheists don't (necessarily) have a burden of proof.
why.
Because atheism isn't defined as "believe god doesn't exist"
it is "don't believe god exists".
If you think god exists, prove it.
I don't need to prove the non-existence of god to not believe in god.
You don't (or shouldn't, or couldn't possibly) believe everything you
don't have any evidence for.
It makes no sense and is not in anyway practical.
So the only sensible thing is to believe things you HAVE evidence for.
As there is no evidence for god, non-belief in god (atheism) is the only
rational option.
Now as an atheist you can go further and say you don't believe in god,
or you know there is no god.
Which does have a burden of proof, and needs justification.
But you don't have to hold that position to be an atheist.
You don't have to have any faith (in the religious, believing stuff with
no proof or justification) to be an atheist.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by rickgarelIt isn't universally true that the existence of God cannot be rationally disproved. If the things said to be true about that God are found to imply a logical contradiction, rational thinkers would count that as a disproof of its existence. Perhaps your atheist friend is conceding that according to the things you say about the God you believe exists, the existence of this God is logically possible. That is a good friend to have.
It really comes down to faith. The non theist can no more prove rationally that God doesn't exist then the theist can prove he does. It seems to me that arguing by use of reason about the existence or non-existence of God is largely fruitless.
I have a friend who describes himself as a devout atheist. At first I thought he was joking until I realized wh ...[text shortened]... hat even though we have diametrically opposed views, we can still share the concept of faith.