zigmonty Wrote:

thecite Wrote:

lagwagon555 Wrote:This is really starting to look like communism with a bit of 'I hope technology solves everything' added in.

Yeah, ignoring the fact that it excludes the two pivotal features of communism, monetary systems and governments.

Only if you define government and monetary systems a certain narrow way. A government is a system for governing. Your society still has this. Decisions are still made. Vague statements about it being distributed mean nothing. How do you distribute a decision? A vote? The difference seems to be that i, as a private citizen, would have no ability to disagree with the almighty logic of the autocratic technology. Sounds fairly totalitarian to me. I'm curious if you've ever read 1984?

A monetary system is a bookkeeping system to determine who gets what resource, nothing more. Your society still has this. The difference is everyone's "budget" is forced on them from on high. People would have no ability to earn a better life for themselves by working hard. Is capitalism rock solid? No. There are panics and depressions. But over the scale of hundreds of years, it has proven to be enormously successful. Arguing counter to capitalism is perfectly acceptable, but understand that we are not capitalist on a whim. There are *reasons* why this is the basis of our society. You are claiming you have something better. Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Yes, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence (I'm a big Carl Sagan fan myself). This 'government' is completely different in the sense that we know it today. Yes, decisions are still made, but it isn't by people with mere opinions and the most money, it's scientists all over the world using technology and the scientific method to reach an unbiased, logical conclusion. How exactly it would be distributed, well obviously I can only speculate, but I'd expect that it would be dependent mainly on the information and suggestions provided by technology first, and perhaps input and consensus from scientists analysing the data.

For those of us that are on the right side of capitalism, it certainly seems very swell. But for most of the world that either lives in poverty, at slave labour rates, or has their land, resources and way of life constantly being annihilated by foreigners and corporations in the name of profit, capitalism is a nightmare. Peace and prosperity are merely short periods between war and hardship.

thecite Wrote:For those of us that are on the right side of capitalism, it certainly seems very swell. But for most of the world that either lives in poverty, at slave labour rates, or has their land, resources and way of life constantly being annihilated by foreigners and corporations in the name of profit, capitalism is a nightmare. Peace and prosperity are merely short periods between war and hardship.

Such as... the Japanese? The South Koreans? The Taiwanese? Poverty and famine have existed throughout recorded history. The countries that are poor now, can you point to a time in the past where they were not poor? Admittedly this is hard to quantify. But if we are to blame capitalism, we have to identify a pattern of wealthy countries whose prosperity was destroyed by capitalism. On the contrary, there does seem to be a definite trend of countries starting out as cheap labour, then progressively developing economically until they have a more or less western standard of living. Most of Asia is at some point along this curve. Some regions (particularly Sub-Saharan Africa) are complete basket cases for other reasons. Sure, unscrupulous people are taking advantage of them, but they are not poor because of this.

There are few examples of hardworking, industrious people who, upon embracing capitalism, had their standard of living reduced.

Thks for the clip, Offshore. I love you too.

thecite Wrote:Yeah, ignoring the fact that it excludes the two pivotal features of communism, monetary systems and governments.

oh, I thought communism is stateless in theory and the Orwellian piggies were supposed to be just a temporary measure. I mean, we are comparing political theories here, right? So technocracy will have scientist councils instead. (cue comments of mafried, zigmonty...)

Quote:Every person that proposes something new and bold is generally labelled as 'unrealistic'.

lol Probably better to rely on the strength of your ideas, rather than try to dismiss those who disagree as simply "too old", "cynical", "close-minded", etc. to consider *anything* new as you've done a few times here. It's a defense tactic that's likely to be seen as an easy cop out: "You're not able to grasp the brilliance of my idea". And btw, this stuff isn't new and bold ... folks have been discussing these concepts for some time. And not just the youngsters ... ;-)

Quote:And it's easy to discredit someone without seriously analysing their ideas.

Indeed.

Thora Wrote:And btw, this stuff isn't new and bold ... folks have been discussing these concepts for some time. And not just the youngsters ... ;-)

It's at least 2,500 years old.. thecite, you should read Plato's 'The Republic', and more importantly all the commentary that has been written about it. The title is a misnomer in this day and age--Plato/Socrates's 'republic' was a society run by philosophers -- the rational, free-thinking scientists of his era. The book is actually sharply critical of Athenian democracy, describing it as corrupting and degenerate. (BTW, there's a theory that Socrates was killed because his 'corrupting of the youth' was the seed planting of this revolution that never occurred--Socrates was very well connected among the fascist military families of the time.)

Anyway the point is that this idea is hardly new. If us old farts are dismissive, it's because we've all been there and though critically about it before. For one reason or another we've decided it won't work, that we don't want it to work, or that it's not worth our time or something. But whatever the reason it is not from lack of exposure or not understanding the concept: any person that has taken a course in western philosophy (which almost every college grad has at some point) has been exposed to this idea and (presumably) rejected it.

But you shouldn't take my idea for it. Go read the book. Then read another book or two about it.

Quote:scientists all over the world using technology and the scientific method to reach an unbiased, logical conclusion

This is where the entire theory crumbles. The problems we cannot solve are those that have either have no logical conclusion, or have multiple logical conclusions. Abortion is an example. Show me a logical conclusion, either for or against, and I will present a solid argument for the opposing viewpoint.

mafried Wrote:

Thora Wrote:And btw, this stuff isn't new and bold ... folks have been discussing these concepts for some time. And not just the youngsters ... ;-)

It's at least 2,500 years old.. thecite, you should read Plato's 'The Republic', and more importantly all the commentary that has been written about it. The title is a misnomer in this day and age--Plato/Socrates's 'republic' was a society run by philosophers -- the rational, free-thinking scientists of his era. The book is actually sharply critical of Athenian democracy, describing it as corrupting and degenerate. (BTW, there's a theory that Socrates was killed because his 'corrupting of the youth' was the seed planting of this revolution that never occurred--Socrates was very well connected among the fascist military families of the time.)

Not only that, Technocracy would also create an intellectual elite social class which is very similar to the scholarly class in ancient China. Morally, it already bugs me for any ideal society to place on group of people above another. There's really no way to say that people have anywhere near equal value in a society like that.

Also it makes the assumption that science is without politics or bias, which is just flat out ridiculous. Scientific theory is not ironclad and it does have problems, it wouldn't be a great idea to put it on a pedestal and build a society around it alone.

Finally, what about questions that engineers and scientists can't answer? What about the deep philosophical debates that are still raging even now like Free Will vs Determinism? Does this society just wipe those under the rug because science can't find an answer? Will this be a Utilitarian society where healthy people are cut up to heal sick people because it saves more people? Or will it be a society that punishes people even though their actions might be predetermined?

There's so many issues and problems that this will not cover and it just acts like science will magically solve them. It seems to hold science as a holy, outside of human fallacy and prejudice, thing, which it really isn't.

When you try to remember history too much, everyone ends up hating each other again. It gives reason for future generations to hate. History seems more like a list of grudges and records to be broken than a warning.

As for Capitalism, it seems to reward bad people more than good people.

A message to this whole topic:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/c...tion-bias/

Small Excerpt:

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

I see some good points from both sides... but no one is willing to compromise. Looks a bit like Congress in Washington to me.

bebio Wrote:I see some good points from both sides... but no one is willing to compromise. Looks a bit like Congress in Washington to me.

Yes, i've heard of Confirmation Bias. No, it's not a new concept.

You assume i actually firmly believe in what i'm saying. On the contrary, i tend to just take an opposing view to whoever's argument i feel is the least well thought out (sorry thecite). On a forum of financial traders, i'd probably come off rather anarchistic. I just enjoy arguing. That's not to say i don't have opinions, just that i *do* recognize that grey areas exist. I believe if you're not willing to expose your views to ridicule, its far easier to be susceptible to stuff like Confirmation Bias. People who think they're superior because they're unwilling to express an opinion... and yet still vote... these people worry me.

Also, since when is compromise the goal in a debate? No actual decision needs to be reached based on this thread, so if there isn't a clear winner, what's the problem? Thecite had a chance to introduce a bunch of people to his ideas, and heard several counter arguments that i hope got him thinking. Whether or not we managed to change his mind is not so important.

Although I think thecite is wrong in this case, it's kind of sad that most of the world has given up on the idea of rethinking how society should operate, and the idea of utopia is just accepted as impossible. Most people are just jumping on the bandwagon anyway after learning utopia is impossible in high school English class or some such and feel comfortable with the idea the current system is best without seriously having thought about it themselves. I personally think a much better and balanced society is achievable for everyone in this world. "Human nature" which is usually offered up as the reason there will always be suffering/war/whatever is being discovered to be increasingly predictable and can be designed around. At any rate, happy, educated people whose needs are met and are fully accountable for their own actions tend not have conflicts with other people. As I said before the problem isn't capitalism making people greedy. The problem is lack of accountability by powerful organizations (governments/churches/coorperations etc). I think globalization has the potential to balance out the world and increase accountability although it will take along time to correct for past current problems.

A lot of this has been said already, but I'm opinionated about these things so I'll go ahead and say it anyway.

First of all, the so-called "greed" that thecite is attributing to capitalism is not greed at all, but motivated self-interest. Do you care about yourself? Do you want what's best for yourself, your family, and (in the future) your children? I'm guessing so. Since you're reading this, I'm also guessing you own a computer, and likely a car, and a house (or your parents do), and numerous other things. Would you want a government (technocratic or not) to take any of that away from you in the name of the "greater good"? I sincerely doubt it. It's human nature to care about yourself, your family, and your belongings. Maybe you don't understand this because you've probably never held a full-time, serious job, but not all jobs are enjoyable or easy - and I'm not just talking about manual labor that can be replaced by robots. If you work most of your life at a difficult job in order to send your kids to college, or buy an expensive house, or whatever, do you want someone to take all of that away from you? Of course not. That's called stealing.

Second, why would we trust scientists to make these kinds of decisions for us? Science is not always clear-cut, especially when it comes to politics. Abortion is just one example of this. Besides that, scientists are going to have just as much self-interest as any other person. I don't want anyone to have that much power.

Third, where do you think all of this new science is going to come from? Who's going to pay for it? Nobody works for free, and so all of this spiffy technology you're talking about is going to have to come from the pockets of the people. Furthermore, it is stupid and naive to trust a single group of people with figuring out what society needs - that's what the free market does. If self-cleaning toilets were more economical than hiring someone to clean them, they would have already been put into place. If a group of scientists (or whoever) decided that every public restroom needed self-cleaning toilets, they would likely end up wasting a lot of money and resources. Scientists aren't magicians or fortune tellers. They can't always tell what's needed where. Only the free market can: if there's a demand for something, then somebody somewhere will be willing to supply it.

I don't care what kind of spin you try to put on it, your argument is just socialism with a technological twist. We've seen through history - and our own government - that socialism doesn't work.

I'm sorry everyone, I was wrong. Capitalism is clearly the best, and the 3.4 billion people on this planet living on less than 2 dollars a day surely agree with you. There's absolutely no need to consider new ways of managing society.

If I do have one criticism of The Venus Project, it's that Fresco's ideas are far too brief at the moment. If he actually invested the time in writing a fully developed description of how such a society could intricately operate, he could win over many more skeptics. At the moment it's really just an elementary idea that needs much more development.

The United States is seeking revenge for S&P downgrading the nation's credit rating.
The country almost deserves its slow grinding fall.

U.S. investigating S&P over mortgages

there was an article in the newspaper about the city of LA cutting contracts with the s&p as well.

S&P put a mirror up to the country to show how out of shape it had become. America grabbed it away and slammed it through their lying skulls. Then, the people returned back to eating deep fried butter on a stick

Transparent_Aluminium Wrote:(Note: If you live in Japan I would suggest that you move far away from any nuclear plant)

Nice bit of foresight there