strawdog65

from: http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2010/12/you-never-really-own-anything/ This a great eye opener! Please enjoy! ================================= You never really own anything 28 Dec 2010 at 21:06 Ownership. Property. This is mine. This is yours. Do you think you own anything? You don’t. Ownership is an illusion. So is property. Why? Because all the things you use are only used by you temporarily before they are passed on or thrown away. Be it food, clothing, cars, property, furniture, cell phones, air, water. You never say to anyone ‘Don’t breath here! This air is mine!’. Of course not. Air is still free, and no one claims to own it. Water is also in a large degree free, but is becoming more and more privatized. Food, clothing, cars and land has become utterly privatized. Still. You don’t, and never will own anything of it. You use it. You don’t own it. At best, all you can say about ownership is that ‘this is in my possession now and as long as I am using it’. That is the most ‘ownership’ there is. Everything that you ‘own’ is only ‘yours’ temporarily. It is only borrowed or rented. Your food goes into you and comes out again. So does the water. Even your body is on loan. When you die it goes back into the circulation. Ownership is an illusion. Still, it’s an illusion bought by humanity. But it is no more than an agreement that say’s that ‘ok, we will have a system here that gives some the right to claim vast resources of the planet for themselves, while others get nothing’. There’s no ownership in nature. There’s only coexistence, with every part fulfilling their task, and every part being fulfilled in doing so. In a moneyless society and resource based economy this is how we will look at ownership, since this is the only ‘ownership’ there is and ever will be. Having a paper that say’s you own something doesn’t make it more ‘yours’ in the big scheme of things. Whatever you ‘own’ can be lost in the blink of an eye. Today ownership is almost equal to accessibility. The more you own, the more access you have to things in life. The more land you own, the more cars you own, the more houses you own, etc. The problem is that you are only one person and cannot possibly make 100% use of all the things you own. Even if you only own one car and a guitar. You will never be able to use whatever you own all the time. If, however, you didn’t own anything, but had access to virtually everything this planet and humanity can offer, you would ‘own’ more than the richest people on this planet will ever own. I’ll say this again, because this is the most important thing there is to grasp when it comes to concept of non-ownership: If you didn’t own anything, but had access to virtually everything this planet, and humanity, can offer, you would own more than the richest people on this planet will ever own. The whole planet would be yours to use. Of course, this means that all borders and visas would have to go too. In a resource based economy everyone will have access to virtually everything on this planet. Today we think that if this was the case, everyone would rush to the same places and go for the same things, because that is what is seemingly happening today. ‘Everyone’ seem to run after the same things. And sometimes, yes, some things are more popular than others. But we must remember that a lot of this is due to advertising and promotion seeking a certain behavior among the population fulfilling the profit motive of the capitalistic system. One example of a moneyless system in today’s society is the library. Sometimes you have to wait for books to come back, yes, but more than often the books you want to borrow are there for you. If the whole world was like the library, you might have to wait a while going to a certain beach or holiday resort if it was full for the time being. But, there would be lot’s and lot’s of other places to visit in the mean time, just like there would be lot’s of other interesting books to read while you were waiting for the one you wanted. Maybe you’d find other, even more interesting books to read, and places to visit, in the mean time. The idea of ownership builds on the notion of scarcity. The thought that there is not enough of places and books for every one of us. Therefore, it is best to hoard as much as we can while we can. If we don’t, we risk being without, not having access and having to live a poor life. Not owning anything could be the best experience humanity has ever had. It would result in the most abundant lifestyle anyone on this planet could ever dream of. Not owning anything is a notion built on the opposite of scarcity. It is a thought that when we share, everyone will have many times more than what we would ever have if we were to own everything we wanted. This includes the richest of the richest people on this planet. No one, I repeat, n o o n e, can own the whole planet. Even though someone certainly tries to do just that, it will never happen. In any case no one would ever be able to use the whole planet for themselves only. You can’t swim on all the seas, climb all the mountains or eat all the food. Some people try to own as much as possible, thinking this will bring the best lifestyle for them, not realizing that sharing will bring more to everyone, even them. Of course, we can not all have our own private jet or private beach. But we would have access to more jet’s and beaches than we could ever use in a world with no ownership. So, since we don’t own anything anyway, since ownership is nothing more than an illusion bringing lack to the world, why not simply abandon it. Of course, this is not something that is done over night. Many people are ready for it, even rich people. But just as many people are afraid of it and far from ready. For it to happen this thought has to manifest itself throughout the population and take root. Humanity have to break free from the thought of money, property and ownership and open it’s eyes to the new virtually unlimited possibilities a moneyless society and a resource based economy can offer.

Ray Kurzweil on the"singularity" Other singularity explanations .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFw0MYAS9qA&feature=related

For all you wondering just how bad can things get? Here is a scale of the bad news..... both images say pretty much the same things, one my be easier to read, both are ironically poignant, and kinda' scarily funny. Check them out.

As an example of what is not desired..... Logan's run A future society with a grim vision...... But a very cool movie.

Hi TrashFilter! Thank you for taking the time to post a reply with some ideas behind them. I agree we can mitigate much of the difficulty of any type of transition to a more thoughtful future society, by using our awareness and encouraging others to do the same. I also agree that one of the very root issues is our vanity and belief that we deserve more than someone else living on planet earth. We are actively living in contempt of all other Humans when we place our desires before the needs of the many who go without even the most basic of goods and services we take for granted everyday. I guess you could say there are several Paradigm shifts ahead of us. There is so much knowledge kept hidden because of the changes it would cause to the structure of our present society, but it is slowly being revealed, the internet will speed the process thankfully. It is nice to discuss related issues to the original post. Thank you TF! Peace!

jb, The original tag line was "can you think of a better idea?" If that is not asking for alternate ideas, then I must be confused. Once you are done, we can move on to constructive discussion and alternate ideas, Since you are unable to bring either to the table. I feel sad for you. It must be quite a burden to think of the future and only be able to see the darkest side of it. Original thinking and coming up with your own ideas must be a struggle to such a closed mind as yours. Are you a taoist? Or just a an ill- mannered know it all? Good luck to You.

Hello Everyone! What is the future of the Human race? Are we bound for destruction and only strife? Is this a future of our own making? If we are asleep at the wheel, who is to blame but ourselves? I agree that all things are cyclic in nature, just as the rise and fall of societies and governments are cyclic, all things have the appearance of a beginning or an end. The only difference is if it is a complete clean slate or there are remnants of the previous society melded with the new. A good example would be Egypt, the history Egyptian technology works in a backwards fashion it seems. Oddly when we look at the advancement of the Egyptian people at the time of the creation of the pyramids, we witness a culture with incredible technology and advancement. But as we move forward in time, away from the building of the pyramids we see a culture that is a shadow of what was before. How does a culture build such incredibly advanced monuments and then misplace the technology that was used in the creation of such monuments? My personal belief is that the culture of the pyramid builders is not the Egyptian culture we see today. The Pyramids are much older than we are led to believe, by thousands of years. And the Egyptian culture that built those monuments collapsed through some incredible calamity. (my thoughts) Technological advancement usually moves forward in time, not backward as we see in Egypt. The most advanced point of Egyptian culture and technology is represented by the time of building the Great Pyramid, after that, technology is in a downward spiral, almost as though Some vital component has been lost. Check the history, check the technology, and it's obvious that we are not getting the truth of what happened in Egypt. This is a sign of the Egyptians inheriting a society and technology not entirely of their own making. To this day, no one can adequately satisfy the questions of how a pre-industrial society could construct structures of such fine precision without the use of advanced tools and machinery. Many of the structures attributed to have been built by the Egyptians would be impossible to build today with the advanced technology we have now. Will our own culture and world society suffer a similar fate? Will we suffer a great calamity and see the efforts of our technology wiped away? Setbacks are inevitable, but how we protect what we have learned is up to us. We can and should prepare to make sure that if something does happen that threatens to extinguish all advancements made, we will protect the legacy for the survivors to start anew. So they can learn and take what was good and re-build from there. What do you think? Are we on a similar path? Peace!

Hi Samuel! Where it stops who knows? Step right up and be prepared, Destination, NOW.

Hello everyone! Since this post has become a whipping post of the Venus Project, I implore any and all reading this to please contribute alternate Ideas for a future earth society. This is a serious topic and I am seriously interested in what you all think about what course the civilization of mankind will take. The idea presented by the Venus Project is just one of many future possibilities. I look forward to reading and discussing your thoughts and Ideas! Peace!

Sadly, I see you are not interested in looking beyond your own very limited viewpoint. When making assumptions of what something is, impartiality is lost. You assume to know what these Ideas I am posting about are. You assume that your knowledge is infallible. You assume to know human nature better than other humans. You assume that optimism is the same as naivete. You assume that because you know something, that all your assumptions are correct. Good luck to you in educating everyone of their ignorance with your magnificent ability to know what is right and true. When you are willing to treat idea's which are new to you with the respect that is needed for actual discussion, I will be interested to hear your view. Peace!

Hi Vortex! You are missing a lot of the information if you believe that is the only way. Our present system can no longer be of use, and fact is hindering the education of people all over the world. Education is controlled to make profit. The Ideas being presented are of a society that has a resource based economy, there is no monetary system, goods and services are produced in abundance because the profit structure no longer exists. As far as education... Yes, in the past it worked because of the lower number of students and the lack of teachers/ resources available. Today there are many educators unable to find work because the profit structure imposes limits on how many teachers may be hired. Today the system we have has become a burden, and it does profit by scarcity. The only way to keep a profit margin is to inflate the price of something, and then make it difficult to get. I think you should try looking at this problem from outside of your own box. Do some research on "scarcity based economics". You are understanding the view you have been taught is the "right' view, and ignoring the alternatives. See for yourself.

How is it things like food, shelter and education will be free to all? Once the monetary system has been removed and economics is based on our resources, you change the dynamics of how things are valued within that society. Having to earn a source of income to pay for the necessities to live your life, is what's wrong with our present system. We are slaves to the monetary system. The things like food, shelter and education that we now pay for, are actually necessities for our lives. Since in a resource based economy it is abundance that is wanted, there is no motivating factor to create scarcity of anything. If you are a farmer, you will produce food for the world, your needs will be taken care of, you'll have no fear of making enough money to pay your bills, because there wont be any bills! If you are in the scientific/ medical field you will contribute your skills and technical abilities to best help everyone. The only limits on this type of society are those that the individual places on themselves. Because everyone will have access to food, shelter, and education, the opportunity for society to advance will be enormous. With no limits on how many people are "allowed" to work in any field, there will be an abundance of skilled individuals working in their perspective fields, able to progress without being limited by the framework of scarcity or monetary gain. It is a society that is very difficult to imagine when we are immersed within something that is it's opposite. But it is a real model of a type of society we are entirely capable of creating.

Do we need to work to feel fullfilled? Is mankind hardwired to have to work a job? There is a widely held belief that if mankind had no jobs or work to do and strive to make money, that we all would be a bunch of useless, uninterested slackers just taking and never giving back to society. I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, that there is growing percentage of people do find it more important to do something fullfilling with their time, then just chase after more things and more money. If the purpose of the average person was to live a full life without the worry of making an income, would this mean they would become lazy and unproductive? In a society of abundance, food, shelter, and education would be provided so that what was really important, human intelligence, could grow in all ways possible. Imagine what the possibilities of such a society would be. Art, science, social fields, mathematics, all would benefit from a society in which people were able to pursue their innate interests in the fields they choose. We believe that the things we are told must be paid for is a sensical arrangement. But it is not. Because we are within a society that manufactures false scarcity, things like education, are kept in scacity by controlling how knowledge is distributed. With a free flowing distribution of knowledge, and no limitations placed on how many teachers are permitted to teach, there is no actual scarcity. Remove profit from the system, and what was scarce becomes plentiful. There are many people of all fields, without teaching jobs because the teaching institutions control how many teachers are permitted to teach, based on making a profit for the institution. Knowledge is free. The control of the distribution of this knowledge creates the false scarcity, that allows profit to be made. This principle is ubiquitous to the entire economic system within which we exist. Profit based systems can not exist without actual or self created scarcity. Abundance is our future.

A scarcity based economy does not value humanity or the planet. This type of economic system has no regard for the Human being. Abundance can be produced, but is not because of an arbitrary cash flow system preventing it. And the same is true of many manufactured products within our society as well. We do not have abundance, not because we can not produce abundance, but only because we are prevented from doing so because the company structure would collapse by doing so. We live in a world designed to manufacture scarcity if there is in fact no actual scarcity of said items. Our very economic structure depends on it to exist. In a economic system based on abundance, production of any item would only be held back by our ability to manufacture/produce it. As long as there are adequate resources available there are no falsely imposed limits placed on the production process. How ever many workers are needed to do the work are how many workers will be used, no limits on use of man power because the economy is about producing abundance, not profit. So, you can see a little bit about how this would be so different from the society in which we live today. When the need to make profit is removed the society benefits from the abundance of production of all things. Of course this type of society is quite a ways off in our present lives. The very first step in an economy of abundance is to remove the profit based structure imposed on world society. Monetary systems would be of no use, and in fact are presently holding us back. The world as a whole will need to share all available resources equally. The north american continent could start its own system, and if proven to be successful, it could be implemented world wide. The precursors to such a society will unfortunately be failure of the present system on a wide spread scale. There is no easy way of starting a system so radically different without being left with no choice but to try something new. We are inherantly hardheaded in nature, I see no other way for change. History proves that humans only make great changes when they are faced with upheaval on a world wide scale.

Our attachment to what we believe the world should be. Is it conscienable to live in the world and not care about improving the world for everyone? We are so busy in our everday lives running around doing the necessities of our lives, never thinking why is it this way? And not only why, but what other ways might there be? Our world society, our civilization as we know it is coming to a crossroads. The way we live, the way business is done, the ways in which we interact within our social groups, the needs and demands of the future of our world are very shortly going to change. Business as usual in our society is squandering the wealth of this entire planet. The profit/scarcity based system our world is built on is the culprit. Our economy, as based on scarcity, has been damaging to our world for some time. When the basis for an economy depends on purposely keeping all market items in scarce supply, so that profit will be made above all other concerns, we have reached the point when that type of economy is a hinderance. This is the world we now live in, a world of manufactured scarcity. You may say thats not true, things are scarce, and in somethings that is true, like precious metals needing to be mined, but as far as food production, farming, housing, education, these items are held back to be purposefully in short supply so that profit can be made. Have you ever noticed how there are plenty of workers looking for jobs but not enough jobs? That is a direct relationship to profit. In a profit based economy, you must never have more workers than dictated by the profit structure. This inherantly means that companies can never have enough workers working to create any abundance of anything within our society. In example, food production can not exceed the amount needed to keep profit within the acceptable range for company survival. In essence this means that even when companies can produce extra/abundance they are prevented from doing so because of survival of their business itself. When an excess is produced or made, it needs to be stockpiled for further use, or sold off at a lower cost, again affecting the profit base. Many things in our world are wasted because rather than lose money, products are destroyed to keep profit up in a scarcity based system. This not the only way.

Hi JB! You have a lot to say, but amongst all of the negativity, I do not see one, single, alternate Idea being submitted. No one is saying they (TVP/Technocracy) have all the answers, certainly not me. You are inferring that what is being presented has all the answers, not I. You are arguing with yourself. You are proving that because you do not believe the concept is sound, it is therefore not true, to you. What is being presented does not need your acceptance to be of merit. Since you so obviously feel strongly about the ideas being presented, why have you NOT taken even a paragraph of space to present an Idea you think will be workable in the future of mankind? At the very least let me hear what you have to say that is an alternate view of what the future may bring. You have not even come close to saying anything original, critics are a dime a dozen, there is no work in being a critic, there is no original vision in being a critic. All it takes is saying no and then pointing to what is perceived to have little or no chance to work, based on your own very limited preconceptions of a reality that has brainwashed you into believing it. If you have an idea that is better, then please present it so we may discuss it. This post was meant to be about ideas for the future civilization of mankind. The Venus Project and Technocracy were Ideas that I was presenting to stimulate further discussion of what may be next in human society. It has not worked out that way.... there is a lot of apathy for the future, apathy that I do not share. So I make no apologies for being excited by the Ideas being presented. JB what Ideas do you have about a future society/civilization? What do you see as the next logical step? I am curious to know if you have any ideas to present, or are you only comfortable in being the critic of ideas that are not your own? What say you?

from: http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Human+Motivation by: bill Desjardins Human Motivation in a Technate or Why People Will Work for Free /Part 2 So what incentive do these people have for what they do? Very little. There are numerous side benefits, such as status and prestige in some cases (such as programming or art), or some volunteer organizations are able to get special privileges or discounts for their volunteers. But by and large, there is no real “incentive” to do this kind of work for free. So what is left? Only initiative can explain the drive most of these people have for spending their time and energy with little or no material reward. So not only is initiative far more widespread than many people think as a motivation, it exists in an environment that actively discourages it. First of all there is the time trade-off. Time spent volunteering or similar activities can be easily spent attempting to earn money, or other form of material reward. This is particularly true of programmers, who often spend 60-80 hours out of their week programming. All the time they spend on their personal projects is time taken away from a job that may very well be paying them by the hour, or at least by completed projects, which obviously would happen less often if one is spending their time programming free software. I know that many if not most of them would prefer to be working on these projects because they prefer the process, the quality controls, and freedom from economic demands that make business programming a hassle and a strain. These programmers would, if they could, spend all of their programming time on these projects, but they know that they have to earn a living, so they get jobs, or attempt to sell some of their projects. There are also other reasons why such initiative-based work is discouraged. Outside of their respective circles, volunteers and free-product makers rarely receive any recognition for their efforts, even when they are just as deserving or even more so than the efforts of those working for pay. Not dealing with money, there is rarely any success in general advertising and marketing of their products, nor are they often mentioned in the press. Linus Torvalds was one obvious exception to this rule, but how many other free software designers have you heard of in the news? There is also the general unsaid bias in our society towards work that is paid for. It is generally regarded that if someone is working for pay, then it is good, honest work for which they are accountable, otherwise they would not be paid for it. Free products and services, on the other hand, are suspect, since the person “donating” these things has no accountability whatsoever. Herein too lies the major difference between incentive and initiative-based attitudes, and that is that accountability is an external motivator, whereas responsibility is an internal one. Upon closer examination of the communities that develop around such free-products, such as the Linux community, or the readership of a web-based comic strip, one notices that there is indeed a certain amount of accountability on the part of creator; if you don't create good stuff, no one will use it. But largely these people actually just like to produce good works, be it for the challenge, the sense of accomplishment, or even simple self-worth, there are many reasons people may state for the reasons behind their work. So now that we know that there are a fair number of people who have found the time and opportunities to give of themselves in some regard despite living in an environment that actively attempts to prevent it, the question arises as to how many others, if given the chance, would do the same? It is a common enough stereotype of the poor starving artist having to work at a crummy and menial job that drains him of his energy, health, and sense of self worth. Granted, this is far from true of all artists, but how many of us feel as though we would love to be doing something else if only we didn't have to spend so much time and energy earning a living? Very few people are currently working in their “dream job,” or even in a field that interests them. When asked why they don't pursue that field, the most common answer you would likely find is: “but I have to earn a living/enough money first.” There are also other factors that prevent this as well, most prominently the ever chaotic and fickle market. Some jobs simply are not profitable, or even entire fields. The arts is one that often falls under this category. Now ask these people if they would pursue their dream job/field if they were given for free all the education they needed for it, and then every opportunity to achieve in it, and likely many people would jump at the chance. Generally, the only people that wouldn't would fall into three groups. 1) Those who don't know what fields are available, and have thus never found something that really interests them. 2) Those who because of low self-esteem do not believe that they are worthy of any sort of achievement, or even choice. 3) People who have learned that the best way to earn a living is through “socially unacceptable” behaviour, i.e. crime. Each of these three categories are problems that can be solved, for the most part, but that we will get to later. Let us now look back at incentives. The failure on the part of the USSR and western social programs to motivate people indeed did provide a lack of incentive through their guaranteed incomes for people to work. The reason for this is because for the most part, the work that they were either assigned or given a choice of was, frankly, unappealing. Given a choice between destitution and a handy construction job, most people would take the latter. However, not many people find a lot of personal fulfilment in such work, and after a while the reasons to perform any quality of work become strictly external, i.e. fear of punishment or loss of job. However, even the latter motivator is removed when one guarantees the job, and gives birth to the phrase: “What are they going to do, fire me?” Now imagine for a moment what would happen if these people were allowed to attend school again to pursue any career they chose, be it arts, sciences, industry, or services. Do you think that their behaviour might change? Out of all the many groups we have discussed so far, including the artists, programmers, volunteers, etc., how many of them would jump at the chance to do this rather than remain at some menial labour or retail job? Now finally let us look at how the different conditions in a Technate would change the behaviour of people using all the factors just mentioned, in much the same manner as lead does once heated to a high temperature. With all the barriers of scarcity removed in a Technate, the quality of education would be unsurpassed. Every single citizen would receive the best quality education, teachers, and materials from day one, and all for free. Only the latest and most successful techniques in instruction would be used, and would be used equally in every school. They would be assessed at regular intervals, starting in early childhood, to determine each individual's strengths and weaknesses. They would be shown their strengths, how to take advantage of them, and where such strengths could be applied best. They would be shown techniques for overcoming their weaknesses, or working around them. Such information is available to us now today, but it is made scarce, available only to those who can afford it, and scattered, so that no one institution would be able to use them all. Thus the majority of our schools and universities often use outdated teaching methods, either due to lack of knowledge of anything better, or more often, insufficient funds to acquire individuals trained in these techniques, and the materials to support them. Each student would also be given a program of instruction that best suited their individual learning style, whether it be individual work, group work, or large group lectures. They would be given either books, movies, lectures, or even hands on experience depending on how they learn best. Mixtures of such styles would also be introduced in order to ensure that each student also develops flexibility, making them the best learners possible. And finally all such learning would be made fun for the student, something that often facilitates learning. During this process, and more so towards the later years in their education, students would be shown every aspect of the operation of the Technate. Field trips could be taken in mobile classrooms across the continent so that they can experience different places and things first hand. Through all this they would become familiar with all the various types of activity that people regularly participated in, as well as the importance of each. As they grow older, their interests will become more well-defined, and they can begin concentrating their studies more towards those topics which would help them in such fields. By the time the student is 25 years old, they will be fully trained and proficient for at least an entry level position in their chosen line of work. If they showed great talent and/or drive, they might even be started off at a higher position, or even started earlier. The upshot of all this is that every citizen is well aware of his or her choices, everything that is possible to do in a Technate. They are also fully aware of how the Technate operates, and which jobs are essential to its operation. This alone solves many of the problems we've previously looked at, namely lack of self-esteem, and not knowing what is available for them that would fulfil them. The complete lack of poverty prevents the majority of the third of the last list of problems, as few people would grow up in environments where crime “pays,” either by affording them sustenance, luxury, power, or even simple “cool” factor. The lack of crime would also help with this. Initiative would not only be freed up in all those that would have it normally at high levels, but would also be encouraged in everyone, so that even people with little inherent self-motivation would find it easy to participate in socially useful activities, and not simply “leech” off of the system. What we are left with then is a population with much higher levels of initiative than in the Price System, actively participating in the operation of the continental mechanism, and the pursuit of their own dreams. But lastly, what of incentives? Despite the emphasis on personal initiative throughout the Technate, there would indeed be externally based incentives. Things such as fame, respect, greater opportunities to achieve, and greater responsibilities are all external reasons for people to perform quality work in a Technate. Good scientists would be promoted to more advanced and interesting projects, excellent leaders would be placed in positions of greater responsibility (e.g. from Urbanate director to Area Control Director), and artists would have their name and works spread across the continent, perhaps even the world, to be enjoyed and praised by greater and greater numbers of adoring fans. Given all this there are many good reasons why people would not only participate in the operation of the Technate, but learn to excel as well. It comes down to what sort of behaviour does your environment encourage and reward? If that environment gives material and other incentives to anyone who can acquire the most transferable currency, then your system is going to “evolve” people that become better at this all the time, regardless of whether that activity is socially useful (or desirable), or how much you try to “fight” against it with laws and threats. However, if your environment not only encourages socially acceptable behaviour, but also supports it and rewards it as well, then your population will adapt to their new environment in order to become successful in it, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Only in an environment of abundance can this be achieved, and only a carefully designed technological society can operate the complex of technology that makes such an abundance possible. Technocracy is the only known design that is capable of accomplishing this, of freeing millions of people to finally pursue their dreams, rather than merely a scarce supply of dollars. Bill DesJardins March 9, 2004

from: http://www.technocracy.ca/tiki-index.php?page=Human+Motivation by: Bill DesJardins Human Motivation in a Technate or Why People Will Work for Free/ part 1 One of the most common concerns people have about Technocracy's design is that of the proposed “guaranteed income” that is part of Energy Accounting. The reasons for this, they often say, are because people are lazy and/or selfish, and will only work when there is something to be gained from it. Sure there are those who do things for so called “higher” reasons, such as altruism, sense of duty or honour, or perhaps just a simple work ethic, but these are the exception to the rule, are they not? Such people are of such a minority that they are often depicted as people like Mother Theresa. If you give an entire population an income, there will not be enough of these people to actually support the rest, especially once they realize that they are the minority, and the “leeches” and “loafers” are having a great time at their expense. They will become disenfranchised and soon say, “Why even bother?” Technocracy did not leave the behaviour of the human animal out of their investigations. Since it was for human society that they were building this design, it was well regarded that understanding them would be intrinsic to creating a society that would both allow them to function as productive members of society, and be able to enjoy it at the same time. In fact, a great deal of attention was given to this area of study, and is part of the Technocracy Study Course, which every Technocrat takes in order to become familiar with the design that they are advocating. Both the nature and behaviour of humans is studied, from a biological point of view, psychological one, as well as sociological. If you have a Study Course text book, you can find much of this information in Lesson 20, as well as scattered throughout most of the rest of the lessons. So the question remains as to why the Technocrats would build a design that incorporates a guaranteed income if it was not so that it was feasible. The simple answer is of course that their studies showed that this was indeed not the case. What I hope to do here is elaborate as well as demonstrate this point to the satisfaction of those who are so concerned. First of all let us look at the reasons why it is generally believed that a guaranteed income is not feasible. Most of the people I have spoken with generally point to two rather large examples, the welfare recipients in North America, and the workers of the old USSR. Far too often we see people partake of both Canada’s and the US’s welfare programs and take them for granted. They are intended as a buffer for those temporarily between work until such time as they can find new jobs. However, many of them either take a long time to do so, perhaps even years, or even never find work of all. Accordingly, the respective governments try to weed out those who take advantage of the system, which is unfortunate because these measures make welfare harder to obtain for those who legitimately need it. Still, their success rate is far from ideal, and there yet remain many who simply behave as parasites on the system that they rest of us support. Another favorite example is the former Soviet Union, at least how most people in western countries understand it. Under this country's communist policies, everyone was guaranteed a job, and if jobs were not available, then jobs were created for them. After all, if they didn't have jobs, they could not spend their money, and that as we all know is bad for the economy. Also, why simply pay them this money for nothing when you can at least ensure that they are doing something useful? The end result, however, was far from satisfactory. Most of the work done by these workers was second-rate at best, and absolutely shoddy at worst. I was told of a custom in the Soviet Union of giving a newly married couple a cat as a marriage present. The cat would then be tossed into the newlywed's brand new house or apartment, as a test to see if the floor would support its weight. I have since been told by people who have lived in the Soviet Union that this story is nothing more than a myth, but it serves to illustrate a point most people in North America believe anyway. So surely, why would a group of intelligent and highly qualified people such as the designers of Technocracy want to design a society that required people such as these to build and maintain this great technological wonderland? Surely even they could realize the dangers inherent in such a leap of trust? The answer to this conundrum lies in the lesser known aspects of human behaviour, the ones often not seen or just discounted. Allow me to illustrate for a moment on the nature of common observation verses true nature. Let us take the nature of a bar of metal, for instance, lead. Now suppose one were to ask the average person on the street what the obvious properties of lead were, they would likely say something like that it was hard, and heavy, with a dull look to it. If you were to then ask another person at random, they would probably agree with this assessment. In fact, it would be very likely that even after asking a hundred, or even a thousand different people this question, or more, that you would find few, if any, that would disagree. The reason for this is that many of them have observed lead in various conditions, perhaps even multiple times, and have found these properties to be rather consistent. The same is true for the observations made by most people regarding the feasibility of guaranteed income, and would likely incur the same results. Now, suppose that I were to show these people a sample of lead that I had in a special container. I would then proceed to pour out this material onto the ground, where it would glow a bright orange and form a puddle there, perhaps causing a bit of smoke or steam, depending on what it came in contact with. This demonstration would no doubt be a bit of a shock to each of these people, as it clearly shows how very wrong they were, but there is also little doubt that many of them would announce that they were only speaking of lead at room-like temperatures, and not molten ones. Most people don't deal with molten lead because they work and live in environments that are too cool for lead to melt, thus they rarely think of its properties in hotter conditions. People who work in the lead industry, however, regularly encounter it this way, and if asked the same question we initially asked everyone else, their response would more likely have been something like, “That depends on what temperature the lead is.” So what does this example illustrate exactly? That certain things behave in a certain manner often due to the environment that they are in. It is often hard to change this behaviour within that environment, much like it is difficult to “pour” lead in its solid state. Only by changing the environment of the lead, i.e. the temperature, can we make it behave in the other ways common to it in those conditions. So too is this true of animals, including the human race. There are many varied conditions and environments that human beings have adapted to in order to survive, and these adaptations required changes of behaviour. Thus, is it not possible then that the behaviour of “leeching off of the system” might too also change, given the correct change of environmental conditions? Before we answer that question, let us now divert to another topic for a short time, that of human motivators. Again, looking at the common objections to guaranteed income we find that something most people will argue is that people will not work when there is no incentive. This very statement implies that either there is no other motivations for people to do something other than incentives (negative or positive), or at least that it is dominant enough that any others would be insufficient to significantly change this view. I would now like to direct your attention to a piece of computer software call “Linux.” Linux is an operating system that allows a computer to work and interface with other software and hardware connected to it. Without an operating system, a computer wouldn't be able to do anything. A computer's operating system can define it's flexibility, limitations, and stability. Thus, at one time, competition was fierce between the various makers of these software. Linux is an OS designed by a Finnish programmer named Linus Torvalds. He developed the OS as an alternative to the UNIX operating system (common among universities and larger companies) for his own use. He designed it to have features that he himself wanted, such as being able to work on smaller processors, and generally never really thought about marketing it. After speaking with several people about the project, their enthusiasm convinced him to release his product under the GNU Public Licence (GPL), (see www.gnu.org) for free. Under this licence, anyone may contribute to the development of this software either for their own use or public distribution. In fact, one of the major stipulations of this licence is that all the code released under it by the author(s) cannot be sold. Since its inception in 1991, Linux has become one of the biggest and most powerful operating systems in the world, and despite this, Linus doesn't receive a single cent for it. How did it become so popular? Was it all Linus' work that did it? Not at all. The GPL that Linux was released under guaranteed that the Linux code would be free to obtain, change, and update. Hundreds of thousands of programmers worldwide have been working on the project, making it better, faster, more stable, and more flexible. Today Linux can be found on everything from car engines to supercomputers. Thousands of programs have been developed to work with Linux, or enhance it, most of them also released under the GPL or similar free-software licences. (A nice brief history of Linux can be found on this web page, at least as of the writing of this article: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux) And out of all these people, none of them have ever made any money for their work. So why do they do it? Are they just weird? Aberrations from the norm? Bored rich kids with nothing better to do? Far from it. Linux programmers range from starving-students, to university professors, to businessmen, and many others. What could motivate such a diverse and numerous group of people from around the world to do quality work for nothing? Technocracy has long established that there are in fact two distinct classes of human motivation. One is the familiar incentive. The other, is initiative. While incentives are outwardly directed, such as fear, punishment, praise or reward, initiative is inwardly based. These motivators come from within the person, that drive them to do what they do largely due to their personality. It is what inspires the artist to paint, or the performer to sing. It is why great visionaries of the past built large monuments and created beautiful buildings. It can include the need to build, to explore, to create, or to improve. It includes all the lofty goals that we see in those few, strange people who try to help humanity without expectation of reward. But this is still a very uncommon thing, is it not? Or is it? Where else can one find these “weirdos” who work for nothing? One often needs go no further than the Internet. FreeBSD, for example, is another operating system that is also released under a free-software licence. So is Net BSD. And FreeDOS. And QNX. And for each of these there is a community of active programmers working away to build and improve these projects. But is this simply limited to operating systems? Not at all. Hundreds of thousands of software titles are created and released for free, ranging from word processors, accounting software, hardware utilities and drivers, databases, Internet browsers, network servers, even games. Each one created by anywhere from a single programmer to teams of thousands or more. The free software phenomenon is much larger than most companies would like you to believe, and for obvious reasons. But this is not just limited to software design either. On the Internet you can find people creating numerous other projects for use by others, often for free. Web page designers, graphics designers, animators, cartoonists, and fiction and documentation writers are just some of the types of people you will find contributing their works for free. Most of the time all they will ask for is that proper credit be assigned, or even a simple acknowledgement in an e-mail. I recall seeing one program designer that released his program for almost free. He called it “postcardware,” and only asked that you send him a postcard from wherever in the world you were. So is this a strictly Internet-based mentality? Granted, it is very prevalent on the Internet due to the fact that information can be so easily exchanged. There is no need for production costs or shipping; all one needs is a connection to the Internet, and perhaps some software that they would likely have already. However, there are still millions of volunteers all over the world giving their time, expertise, and skills to whatever they think will help others. Statistics Canada reported that in 1996 over half of the population of Canada had donated some of their time to volunteer work.

Scarlet pillow lips, Silent kisses, fire crackles, Fresh wood, into flame.