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.

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...)

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 ...  ;-)

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

Indeed.

Last edited by Thora (2010 August 06, 5:00 am)

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.

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.

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.

Last edited by zigmonty (2010 August 07, 2:39 am)

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.

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

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