How on Earth did that rate flamebait??? I agreed with what the poster said s/he believes in, and then provided some supporting information s/he might be interested in, on how to achieve that. Again I ask, how is that flamebait? If anything I was being "informative". We sure do have some screwy moderators on this site. Is this the "-1 Disagree" I've heard about? I'm not sure how that even applies since I was agreeing with him/her! And on a week-old thread at that.
"If you look at science fiction - particularly Iain Banks and the like - what you see is a post-scarcity form of anarcho-socialism where the means of production not only automated and virtually cost-free but distributed and democratised. That the sort of thing we need - but whether it is attainable without the fantasy plot devices available in a SF story"
"If automation continues to improve productivity there will come a time when the labor of some fraction of the population is capable of fully satisfying every human being alive. The only question is at what point does that happen."
Actually, it can be scientifically predicted, and in fact already has been, and that point has already passed. It was a scientific research group called the Technical Alliance that predicted that the economy would collapse because a point of "abundance" would be achieved. The date they predicted was March 1930. Turns out that they were six months optimistic. The only reason we don't have this luxury now is because abundance requires that we get rid of scarcity economics, and those in power only maintain it because of scarcity economics, so they decided to get rid of the abundance instead.
You're right. This was a lesson we learned from the great depression, which was caused (largely) by machines putting people out of work. So one of the things we did to get out of it was to make sure employment was maintained at a high level, regardless of how useful it actually is to society. We could have so many people freed up to do far more meaningful things, even if it was only a small percentage of them, we'd still be far better off.
You're right, it is the ultimate goal. The whole point of machines is to do work we don't want to do. The problem is that with the current economic system, income is linked directly with doing work, so as work becomes more scarce, so does purchasing power. The solution is to uncouple those two concepts. Then people will be free to do the work they want to do, and we let machines do the rest. It's not that difficult.
Actually we could have had a post-scarcity society decades ago, we have all the requirements already. Maybe not for ordering up your own rocketship to Mars, but enough to live well and get rid of money.
Except for people like my friend, who lost his steam pw, and can't get it back because it used an old e-mail account that's dead. Is it his fault? Maybe, but the point is that he has games that he paid for, has the physical media, but still can't even install let alone play because of this DRM. Does that sound right to you?
Thanks for helping me out, but it's still confusing. If they've "admitted" that this was all already being done, how can they have legalized more? Or is it that they are just claiming that it was all being done before, trying to make it look like nothing has changed when it really has?
Yeah, it does matter why they are the way they are, because if you can understand that, then you are on the way to developing a way to prevent it, perhaps even fix it for those already on a bad path. I'm not saying that there are any easy answers, but I think they are achievable. If we just dismiss these people though, nothing will ever change.
"The Fact Is"?? Has there been a scientific study that has objectively measured the "evil" in little children, and then tracked them into their teen and adult years, monitoring their levels of "evil"? If you want *facts*, yes, there are people who are born with chemical or other defects in their brains, but they make up a small number (less than 5%) of all criminal activity (if we even want to use that as a standard for "evil", but that's another debate). Really, humans are born as mostly blank slates, with a few personality tendencies, none of which are more likely to commit acts of "evil" than others. Each of them has the potential, through the shaping of how they are raised by their parents, family, school, friends, and society, as well as less direct influences like economic position, culture, art and media, to become exceptionally good or bad. There are a lot of factors to look at when trying to figure out why people like these do things, but dismissing them as 'simply evil' does nothing to help solve the problem.
So the new law expands their surveillance powers, or doesn't, and just adds more rules for them. Could someone please explain which it is for those of us without access to TFA? I really hope this isn't typical American anti-French bias.
Well put sir. It sounds like you might be familiar with Technocracy? If not, you may find it interesting, since they are saying the same thing you are (and indeed have been for about 80 years).
I'm glad you brought this up. It's a pity that you weren't modded any better though. Until we take the money out of the equation, fighting battles like this is all up-hill.
"It is about a planned economy and wealth redistribution."
Not like any planned economy you know of. The people decide themselves what gets produced, while science determines how. See this article for more on that.
"And these democratic decisions, how would they be enforced. What if 40% of the people disagree, and start disobeying? What if just 1% disagree, can they be forced to comply? (with bullets)"
You should probably read a little more in depth about the subject, rather than just the quick summaries as it's easy to misinterpret some things. The vast majority of these "democratic" decisions would what I mentioned before, people deciding what is to be produced, and they do this simply by choosing what to consume in the first place, so there is no way to "disobey" in the sense you are thinking about. About the only way someone could "disobey" is if they were working as part of the production-distribution chain and were not doing their job, in which case the reason would be investigated and if it couldn't be fixed right away then they would be replaced, simple as that. The rest of these "democratic" decisions would be things like "what should the flag look like?" so really there is nothing to enforce.
"What if I don't want to control my technology scientifically. Suppose I don't care about science, or maybe I believe in a different scientific method. What would such a system have to offer to me."
First of all, there are no different scientific methods, just the one. Perhaps you are thinking about issues where there might be two competing scientific theories, neither of which have proven themselves above the other? This wouldn't really affect the economy much, because in what needs to be done, there are no such issues. On the forefront of science however, there are plenty, and systems relying on such things simply wouldn't be used unless and until the correct answer could be arrived at with certainty.
Second, there is no private property in Technocracy, so you would "have" no technology with which to control however you choose. You may work in a position that you are qualified for that involves operating said technology, but if you do not do so according to clearly defined scientific measures, then the problem is investigated and dealt with as I mentioned before. But even this short description can be misleading if you don't know more about how this works. Suppose you are thinking that you want to drive around the country in an RV, does that have to be done scientifically too? Where you drive and when, no. How you drive, well yes, for safety reasons. It all comes down to the separation of technical and objective issues from subjective ones, much like how was discussed in the Technocracy Comparative article I linked to above. Technocracy does not interfere with your subjective choices in how to live your life. Objective issues however affect others and need to be done a certain way. You could not, for instance, decide to drive that RV into buildings or through areas where there is pedestrian traffic only, just like today.
So what does it have to offer you? Just the highest standard of living possible on the planet in terms of consuming power, coupled with the highest degree of freedom possible in how to live your life and use that consuming power. Plus all the other goodies.
The need for this was already determined scientifically over 80 years ago. You may want to look at this summary of why that is. What we can do about it you can find here.
I don't see this as a defence of abortion at all. Here's another way to look at this scenario: I was kidnapped and given a medical condition that will, on it's own, clear up in 9 months. However, I also have the option of clearing it up right now, provided I am willing to murder someone to do it. So do I have a moral obligation to "keep this person hooked up?" Um, I'd say a big yeah!
Slashdot Mirror
How on Earth did that rate flamebait??? I agreed with what the poster said s/he believes in, and then provided some supporting information s/he might be interested in, on how to achieve that. Again I ask, how is that flamebait? If anything I was being "informative". We sure do have some screwy moderators on this site. Is this the "-1 Disagree" I've heard about? I'm not sure how that even applies since I was agreeing with him/her! And on a week-old thread at that.
Yeah, it's attainable. Check this out.
Yeah, you're right. And what you're basically talking about is called Technocracy.
"No, there is another."
Actually, it can be scientifically predicted, and in fact already has been, and that point has already passed. It was a scientific research group called the Technical Alliance that predicted that the economy would collapse because a point of "abundance" would be achieved. The date they predicted was March 1930. Turns out that they were six months optimistic. The only reason we don't have this luxury now is because abundance requires that we get rid of scarcity economics, and those in power only maintain it because of scarcity economics, so they decided to get rid of the abundance instead.
We have no economic framework in place, but there has been one designed that would work quite well, if only enough people knew about it.
You're right. This was a lesson we learned from the great depression, which was caused (largely) by machines putting people out of work. So one of the things we did to get out of it was to make sure employment was maintained at a high level, regardless of how useful it actually is to society. We could have so many people freed up to do far more meaningful things, even if it was only a small percentage of them, we'd still be far better off.
What's wrong with eliminating the concept of money? For as long as you do it right, it looks pretty good.
You're right, it is the ultimate goal. The whole point of machines is to do work we don't want to do. The problem is that with the current economic system, income is linked directly with doing work, so as work becomes more scarce, so does purchasing power. The solution is to uncouple those two concepts. Then people will be free to do the work they want to do, and we let machines do the rest. It's not that difficult.
Actually we could have had a post-scarcity society decades ago, we have all the requirements already. Maybe not for ordering up your own rocketship to Mars, but enough to live well and get rid of money.
Except for people like my friend, who lost his steam pw, and can't get it back because it used an old e-mail account that's dead. Is it his fault? Maybe, but the point is that he has games that he paid for, has the physical media, but still can't even install let alone play because of this DRM. Does that sound right to you?
Thanks for helping me out, but it's still confusing. If they've "admitted" that this was all already being done, how can they have legalized more? Or is it that they are just claiming that it was all being done before, trying to make it look like nothing has changed when it really has?
Yeah, it does matter why they are the way they are, because if you can understand that, then you are on the way to developing a way to prevent it, perhaps even fix it for those already on a bad path. I'm not saying that there are any easy answers, but I think they are achievable. If we just dismiss these people though, nothing will ever change.
"The Fact Is"?? Has there been a scientific study that has objectively measured the "evil" in little children, and then tracked them into their teen and adult years, monitoring their levels of "evil"? If you want *facts*, yes, there are people who are born with chemical or other defects in their brains, but they make up a small number (less than 5%) of all criminal activity (if we even want to use that as a standard for "evil", but that's another debate). Really, humans are born as mostly blank slates, with a few personality tendencies, none of which are more likely to commit acts of "evil" than others. Each of them has the potential, through the shaping of how they are raised by their parents, family, school, friends, and society, as well as less direct influences like economic position, culture, art and media, to become exceptionally good or bad. There are a lot of factors to look at when trying to figure out why people like these do things, but dismissing them as 'simply evil' does nothing to help solve the problem.
So the new law expands their surveillance powers, or doesn't, and just adds more rules for them. Could someone please explain which it is for those of us without access to TFA? I really hope this isn't typical American anti-French bias.
You're right, that's not how you steer culture. This is how.
You encourage, not demand, or force.
Well put sir. It sounds like you might be familiar with Technocracy? If not, you may find it interesting, since they are saying the same thing you are (and indeed have been for about 80 years).
I'm glad you brought this up. It's a pity that you weren't modded any better though. Until we take the money out of the equation, fighting battles like this is all up-hill.
"It is about a planned economy and wealth redistribution."
Not like any planned economy you know of. The people decide themselves what gets produced, while science determines how. See this article for more on that.
"And these democratic decisions, how would they be enforced. What if 40% of the people disagree, and start disobeying? What if just 1% disagree, can they be forced to comply? (with bullets)"
You should probably read a little more in depth about the subject, rather than just the quick summaries as it's easy to misinterpret some things. The vast majority of these "democratic" decisions would what I mentioned before, people deciding what is to be produced, and they do this simply by choosing what to consume in the first place, so there is no way to "disobey" in the sense you are thinking about. About the only way someone could "disobey" is if they were working as part of the production-distribution chain and were not doing their job, in which case the reason would be investigated and if it couldn't be fixed right away then they would be replaced, simple as that. The rest of these "democratic" decisions would be things like "what should the flag look like?" so really there is nothing to enforce.
"What if I don't want to control my technology scientifically. Suppose I don't care about science, or maybe I believe in a different scientific method. What would such a system have to offer to me."
First of all, there are no different scientific methods, just the one. Perhaps you are thinking about issues where there might be two competing scientific theories, neither of which have proven themselves above the other? This wouldn't really affect the economy much, because in what needs to be done, there are no such issues. On the forefront of science however, there are plenty, and systems relying on such things simply wouldn't be used unless and until the correct answer could be arrived at with certainty.
Second, there is no private property in Technocracy, so you would "have" no technology with which to control however you choose. You may work in a position that you are qualified for that involves operating said technology, but if you do not do so according to clearly defined scientific measures, then the problem is investigated and dealt with as I mentioned before. But even this short description can be misleading if you don't know more about how this works. Suppose you are thinking that you want to drive around the country in an RV, does that have to be done scientifically too? Where you drive and when, no. How you drive, well yes, for safety reasons. It all comes down to the separation of technical and objective issues from subjective ones, much like how was discussed in the Technocracy Comparative article I linked to above. Technocracy does not interfere with your subjective choices in how to live your life. Objective issues however affect others and need to be done a certain way. You could not, for instance, decide to drive that RV into buildings or through areas where there is pedestrian traffic only, just like today.
So what does it have to offer you? Just the highest standard of living possible on the planet in terms of consuming power, coupled with the highest degree of freedom possible in how to live your life and use that consuming power. Plus all the other goodies.
Heh, it appears some anonymous person doesn't know very much about Technocracy or communism.
The need for this was already determined scientifically over 80 years ago. You may want to look at this summary of why that is. What we can do about it you can find here.
Good for you for noticing this! This is precisely what Technocracy has been saying for 80 years now.
Holy crap, those are Tron helmets! Make them the right colors and light up and I'd totally wear one!
I *wish* government was becoming more technocratic, given the original meaning of the term.
I don't see this as a defence of abortion at all. Here's another way to look at this scenario: I was kidnapped and given a medical condition that will, on it's own, clear up in 9 months. However, I also have the option of clearing it up right now, provided I am willing to murder someone to do it. So do I have a moral obligation to "keep this person hooked up?" Um, I'd say a big yeah!