Although I agree with some of the shortcomings of the current social and economic systems as presented in the article, I find it difficult to take RBE ideas seriously when I'm confronted with vague statements such as the following, and I quote:
«This economic system is based on intelligent, strategic management of Earth's resources»; «solutions that would be the most strategically efficient and sustainable for meeting the needs of humanity»; «it is designed around scientific understanding of natural laws»; «which can be fixed by an intelligent and strategic management and allocation of resources and technology».
What does it really mean to have an intelligent, strategic management of resources? Who ascertains its quality? Is there a single, beyond doubt, most efficient system, anyway?
What does it mean that the system is designed around scientific understanding? Will scientists rule the world and decide what's best for everyone? Will it be a technocracy of sorts?
And what are humanity's needs, and who decides that? Are they merely physiological in nature? Does the freedom to pursue one's own goals fall into humanity's needs?
These questions are meant to illustrate how vague I find many of the descriptions of RBE to be. I haven't been able to find a clear and comprehensive article which lays out concrete proposals for dealing with these and other issues. In the end, I always get the sense that a RBE is just a sketchy and highly idealized social organization which will always remain utterly unattainable.
Just to be fair, I wouldn't expect an introductory article to be thorough. I hope I might be able to discuss these things further once you go into more details in the next articles.
"Who ascertains its quality"
Not who but what. Constant submission to scientific scrutiny and scientific method.
"Is there a single, beyond doubt, most efficient system, anyway?"
Nowhere it is claimed that it is the most efficient. It is simply likely to be much more efficient and sustainable than current system. It is about trying to be as efficient as possible. Complete efficiency is very difficult to obttain.
"What does it mean that the system is designed around scientific understanding? Will scientists rule the world and decide what's best for everyone? Will it be a technocracy of sorts"
No one rules. There is no hierarchy or allocation of social power.
"And what are humanity's needs, and who decides that? Are they merely physiological in nature? Does the freedom to pursue one's own goals fall into humanity's needs?"
Laws if nature decide what are basic human needs. Discoveries in human behavioral biology/evolution have taught us a lot about this subject.
"? Does the freedom to pursue one's own goals fall into humanity's needs?"
"As long as they are not detrimental to our environment which we all share.
These questions are meant to illustrate how vague I find many of the descriptions of RBE to be. I haven't been able to find a clear and comprehensive article which lays out concrete proposals for dealing with these and other issues. In the end, I always get the sense that a RBE is just a sketchy and highly idealized social organization which will always remain utterly unattainable."
https://www.thevenusproject.com/faqs/
https://www.thevenusproject.com/product/the-best-that-money-cant-buy-book/
I had browsed through the website of The Venus Project in the past, and I've never found definite proposals regarding resource management and governance. I also didn't find them now. Could you maybe point me to some peer reviewed scientific paper where a so-called "strategic and intelligent management" protocol is described and analyzed? Because those vague words are always as far as I've seen RBE proponents go. But that might be my fault as well; I'm not really involved in the project nor have I made deep research on it.
Regarding your assertion that no one would be ruling, I just don't buy it. Science is not written on stone; it is neither consensual nor static; and while scientific knowledge should, in principle, be objective, its applications are subject to ethical questions which are not answered within science. There is always a political aspect to social life, even if you start from a scientific perspective. I don't think RBE proponents realize that they too make political statements while arguing against the necessity of politics.
Finally, regarding humanity's needs, the basic human needs might be contingent upon basic natural laws. As for me, I like to regard myself as a bit more than a meat sack which eats and poops, and I brought up the freedom to pursue one's own goals because this is a very important matter to me. It might not be so to everyone, but it is to me, and it certainly is for many other people. What if my goal does have some spurious negative impact (almost everything does, in the end)? Would I be forbidden to pursue it? So would there be someone ruling after all, forbidding me to do so? Or what if my goal is just not akin to the efficiency standards? Would I be forced to abandon it? There you have it, politics again.
I just can't seem to form a coherent picture from the information I've been able to collect on RBE. But then again, that just might be my own fault. Thank you for your kind reply.
You cannot test social system in the single lab. Looking for peer reviews of social system tested on small scale dors not make sense. Same as you cannot test capitalism, feudal system or communism in the labs. It requires massive social change and transformation. First experimental city has to be build.
https://www.thevenusproject.com/faqs/
I've heard this argument before from a politician.
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it ."
"It requires massive social change and transformation. First experimental city has to be built."
sigh
Your reasoning is logically fallacious.
Completely illogical comparison.
First sentence is about paper proclamation that is not transparent no one knows what it is going to be about until it is enforced on public.
Second sentence is about scientific experiment that is transparent with the data well known before it is conducted and everyone being able to observe it's process.
I am tired of correcting logical fallacies. This is the end of this conversation.
Since you are an ardent follower of scientism, it is hard to argue with you! But its always hard to argue with zealots. Cest la vie.
Yet another logical fallacy. Self evidently you don't understand the foundations of logical discourse.
I have tolerated your previous bullshit but won't tolerate ad hominem. I have given you the chance to show capacity for logical discourse but you have failed with each response adding more and more logical fallacies.
Go away or you will get blocked and flagged.
I don't know where to find the last science bulletin stating "these are what science currently considers to be basic human needs". The closest thing I know to this is Maslow's pyramid, which is an over-simplified and widely criticized attempt to hierarchically define a set of human needs. I do not know of any unanimous and neatly defined set of basic human needs provided by science. But again, science is not a consensus endeavor; it is the opposite of it. It is the constant attempt to discover the cracks in its models; it is the ever questioning attitude towards a deeper and more meaningful understanding of existence. And when it comes to social and behavioral sciences, I think it is fair to say that we are still in an infant stage of our understanding. Nonetheless, I would be glad if you could point me in some promising direction, if you know of one.
I agree that an empirical test of a social structure requires such a structure to be built. However, you need to have a blueprint of what you're building. That's more or less what I was asking you about: what are the scientifically studied management models that are to be attempted when building this first city? If RBE claims to be rooted in the scientific method, you need a clearly defined hypothesis to be put to test, not a vague promise to "do things scientifically" (whatever that means) once whatever it is that you want to build is built. That's usually what religious leaders ask of their followers.
Don't take me the wrong way; I sincerely appreciate this sharing of ideas and I am not simply disregarding any RBE ideas from scratch. I just believe that the best way to develop some good model is to attack it at its weakest points to see if it is able to stand. That is how I choose to eventually be of any use to the development of the ideas behind RBE or to their mutation into something more solid.
Thank you again for your kind answers.
You are right. Criticism is important. Your doubts have been asked before. Check up TVP FAQ, please.
https://www.thevenusproject.com/faqs/
About basic human needs. Maslov pyramid is moreless accurate although probably it should be modified about certain priorities. and what science currently understands about them and human behaviour, I learnt a lot from series of lectures from Stanford University called "Introduction To Human Behavioral Biology". I very much recommend it.
Thank you for your answer. Regarding TVP FAQ, I have browsed it more than once, but I haven't really found answers to the questions I am posing. As for the lectures, I'll certainly check them out, though it may take me a while. Thanks again!
Yes, the series is quite long. There is lots of research in this field. it is worth waching