You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Introduction To Resource-Based Economy - What Is Wrong With Our Socio-Economic System.

in #science7 years ago

A resource based economy fails due to the same top down structure that makes our current system so bad.

It sounds nice because "science", but really science and the view that progress is king, are fallacies. We are not the most technologically advanced society that has been on this planet.

We can't even argue correctly about climate change. People, scientists even, are still arguing that CO2 is the thing that needs to be measured, when it was shown that it is a following indicator long long long ago. CO2 should have been removed from the discussion long long long ago.

So, I do not believe in a scientific application of redistribution. It doesn't work. No matter how well you divide things up. If you have 8 units of food and 10 people, 2 are going to die. Innovation happens at the individual level and can never be predicted or have a plan made around it. It is the bunch of individuals trying various approaches that can increase productivity to 10 units of food.

To express this in a different way. All of the above structures (pictures) are pretty. And in the same breath, pretty useless. Real usable structures don't look like that. Real usable structures have nooks and crannies. They have individual details everywhere. They have a character every place you look. The structures above only make engineering a bit simpler. Make maintenance a bit easier. But destroy all the humans that would live within them, mandating a boring life.

Sort:  

Sorry but obviously you have projected assumptions without very little knowledge about The Venus Project. I can only say that most of your arguments are either under informed or false. I recommend learning more about RBE either by exploring TVP. I recommend starting by reading the book "The best that money can't buy" by J. Fresco or reading my future articles.

Well, answer this.
From the end of one of the movies The Venus Project did.

they said, something to the effect: that we haven't done an global analysis of what natural resources we have.

How on earth would you do that? There are pyramids in the jungle of central america that we still haven't found. Further, how would you catalog, say lithium if you were living in the 1950s? We do not know what will be important in the future, and we have no way of doing that many tests.

1st. We are not living in the 50s.
2nd. Assessing all planet's resources means assessing those that we are currently technologically able to assess. Not literally every single one, even including Earth's core. I think that it is logically obvious and that is what they mean but it seems that you had difficulty understanding it.

In the 50s Lithium was used in some medicines. Now it is an important, almost essential, resource. Similarly, what we need in the future will be quite different than what we use today.

Now, lets take oil. Something that is highly prized and has had a lot of engineers and geologists looking for the stuff.

Do we have any idea how much of this resource we have? Not really.
Do we have any idea how much of this resource there is on the earth? Not at all.
(one of the biggest finds of oil is under Texas, where they thought they drilled every square mile.)

And this is something with lots and lots of effort behind it.
We couldn't make this catalog of resources even if we wanted to.
So, the first step the Venus Project outlined is pretty much in the realm of impossible.

"Similarly, what we need in the future will be quite different than what we use today"

That us the basics on which RBE us built upon. That is why it is called emergent system.

I will just repeat what I wrote above as it seems that you either completely ignored it or refuse to make an effort to understand the response.

~Assessing all planet's resources means assessing those that we are currently technologically able to assess. Not literally every single one, even including Earth's core. I think that it is logically obvious and that is what they mean but it seems that you had difficulty understanding it.~

logic wins.
I am from canada, low population, high land area, vast amounts of energy and resources (many many time what we need to satisfy everyone's needs to the fullest) yet despite this the economical model based on money and profits have kept us way below our potential living standard.

So I say congrats to logic for having written imho the best steemit article ever.

To all the non believers: eat my shorts you guys are part of the problem and only working overtime to keep the population as non-believers so you can keep profiting off of them. shame on you.

enough energy + enough resources + full automation = o human intervewntion = 0 cost

stop saying its not possible and start accounting how much of your efforts are going to the cause:

like no efforts put into the cause

like all efforts put into becoming wolves of wallstreet, corrupt sherifs, powertripping lawyers, drug dealing doctors....geeez...

Hey. Thanks for the comments!! :-)

Jesus said share the food, and so they did, and once everyone was done eating to their full appetite, there was plenty of food left.

C02 is a great catalyst to store solar energy, without CO2 we would die, we need more of it, there used to be more of it, we need to go get fossil fuels back to the surface, earth needs a tuneup