What will be the future earth society?

[strawdog65]

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

Edited January 3, 2011 by strawdog65

[joeblast]

Hi JB!

 

You bring some great points up.

 

Sorry, you are misunderstanding something somewhere, about "undesirables".

This is not part of anything I have said or posted.

 

As far as the future energy capabilities, don't you think that maybe we should

leave the pessimism to the scientists that are bringing the advancements about?

I doubt you are even remotely qualified to say what will or will not come to pass.

Unless you are a scientist working in the very fields necessary to bring about

the replicators/ molecular assemblers of our future?

 

The possibility of limitless energy production has been known for many years.

 

JB, I think you are just being sour about a future I see as being bright.

It is your right to be as you wish.

 

I am an optimist.

 

Peace!

Ah...ok...my initial impression of the underpants gnomes was correct

[NeiChuan]

New ones coming out soon.

[joeblast]

Hi JB!

 

Happy New year to you.

 

As far as the communism bit:

 

 

How does The Venus Project Compare with Communism?

Communism being similar to a resource-based economy or The Venus Project is an erroneous concept. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, and is managed by appointed leaders. The Venus Project's aim is to surpass the need for the use of money. Police, prisons and the military would no longer be necessary when goods, services, healthcare, and education are available to all people. The Venus Project would replace politicians with a cybernated society in which all of the physical entities are managed and operated by computerized systems. The only region that the computers do not operate or manage is the surveillance of human beings. This would be completely unnecessary and considered socially offensive. A society that uses technology without human concern has no basis of survival. Communism has no blueprint or methodology to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments.

 

 

We would surpass the need for human participation in the production of goods and services. There is no taxation or obligation of any kind. We advocate no government by human systems. They have always proved inadequate. Computerized systems and cybernetics would be applied to the social system and must comply with the carrying capacity of our global resources. The machines' main purpose is for the manufacturing and distribution of goods and services while maintaining a clean environment with service to all and profits to none. When people have access to resources, most crimes will disappear. The need for police, military, and prisons will eventually vanish with it. Of course this will coincide with the necessary changes in education. I hope this helps to clarify some points. We realize this is a simplified description of how it differs from communism.

 

 

Hope this helps as to how it is different.

I missed this before

 

Curious how this paradigm would deal with crime - it does a good job at postulating that the end result of its paradigm would be no crime and no need for police or prisons, but like the rest of the bulk, provides next to nothing in terms of how this might be accomplished - again all the mythical technological advancements have come along and swept away all of the issues that plague the idea, but one cannot simply poke their heads into the sand and ignore them. What do you propose to do without the myriad technological achievements this entire theory rests upon? The question was conveniently sidestepped saying "let's leave that to the scientists" - well, that isnt plausible in the least.

 

This simply seems to be a hugely contrived mental effort to envision a world without money - wow, look at all the problems that "disappear" with the disappearance of money - to whit, are you delusional???

 

Like I said, the picture is of a rosy end-result with next to nothing of a means to actually get there. There is no idea of how to transition (aside from our current society collapsing, in which case I dont know how supporting of this paradigm true Anarchy would be)...no idea of how to actually supplant a monetary based system, no true idea of what a government (local, state, or country) does for its people (all the negatives aside of course)....it has no idea of how an economy functions (an economy WILL be present even in the absence of money)...

 

Even the dismissals of comparison to communism are done in a whimsical and offhand manner! Those "extensions of communism" (money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, managed by appointed leaders) are byproducts of a country's existence and are common to just about every country, and they are hardly unique to communism. To take Marx's tenets and deem them inapplicable because they contain ways for the state to quash its citizens and money's somehow involved is naive to the extreme.

 

Still nothing in terms of getting from point A to point B - even with the hail mary pass on technological achievement...

 

You also mention the capacity of earth and what not, yet are insistent that there wont be any central body to procure such laws, nevermind the security mechanism to enforce it. What will stop people from doing anything they damned well please?

 

Yes, I was going to let the thought experiment lie, but you guys really seem to believe in the idea and really seem to be quite willing to overlook a whole ton of catastrophic issues with the concept. I am compassionately wondering why you choose to waste time on an effort that contains such a preponderance of fatal flaws - and refusing to address them

 

Your only ways around the fatal flaws are to assume their elimination at some future point and reverse engineer it from there - and the proposal even fails at that, for it surmises that the end results will be the vehicle by which the fatal flaws are eliminated - yet it provides no mechanism for the establishment of such a vehicle for it to even begin to happen. You've posted up a bunch of flowery descriptions of future gains peppered with scathing verbiage of every conceivable issue of the present paradigm, but despite the thousands of words, it hasnt said a heck of a lot.

[strawdog65]

I missed this before

 

Curious how this paradigm would deal with crime - it does a good job at postulating that the end result of its paradigm would be no crime and no need for police or prisons, but like the rest of the bulk, provides next to nothing in terms of how this might be accomplished - again all the mythical technological advancements have come along and swept away all of the issues that plague the idea, but one cannot simply poke their heads into the sand and ignore them. What do you propose to do without the myriad technological achievements this entire theory rests upon? The question was conveniently sidestepped saying "let's leave that to the scientists" - well, that isnt plausible in the least.

 

This simply seems to be a hugely contrived mental effort to envision a world without money - wow, look at all the problems that "disappear" with the disappearance of money - to whit, are you delusional???

 

Like I said, the picture is of a rosy end-result with next to nothing of a means to actually get there. There is no idea of how to transition (aside from our current society collapsing, in which case I dont know how supporting of this paradigm true Anarchy would be)...no idea of how to actually supplant a monetary based system, no true idea of what a government (local, state, or country) does for its people (all the negatives aside of course)....it has no idea of how an economy functions (an economy WILL be present even in the absence of money)...

 

Even the dismissals of comparison to communism are done in a whimsical and offhand manner! Those "extensions of communism" (money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification, managed by appointed leaders) are byproducts of a country's existence and are common to just about every country, and they are hardly unique to communism. To take Marx's tenets and deem them inapplicable because they contain ways for the state to quash its citizens and money's somehow involved is naive to the extreme.

 

Still nothing in terms of getting from point A to point B - even with the hail mary pass on technological achievement...

 

You also mention the capacity of earth and what not, yet are insistent that there wont be any central body to procure such laws, nevermind the security mechanism to enforce it. What will stop people from doing anything they damned well please?

 

Yes, I was going to let the thought experiment lie, but you guys really seem to believe in the idea and really seem to be quite willing to overlook a whole ton of catastrophic issues with the concept. I am compassionately wondering why you choose to waste time on an effort that contains such a preponderance of fatal flaws - and refusing to address them

 

Your only ways around the fatal flaws are to assume their elimination at some future point and reverse engineer it from there - and the proposal even fails at that, for it surmises that the end results will be the vehicle by which the fatal flaws are eliminated - yet it provides no mechanism for the establishment of such a vehicle for it to even begin to happen. You've posted up a bunch of flowery descriptions of future gains peppered with scathing verbiage of every conceivable issue of the present paradigm, but despite the thousands of words, it hasnt said a heck of a lot.

 

 

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?

[strawdog65]

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.

Edited January 3, 2011 by strawdog65

[strawdog65]

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.

Edited January 3, 2011 by strawdog65

[strawdog65]

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.

[gendao]

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.

Lol, this neo-Marxist attitude is nothing new and totally failed.

 

He actually has it backwards - the profit motive is what motivated people to build universities and pay teachers to teach there...to begin with! And the more paying students they get, the more teachers they can then hire. The number of teachers is limited by the school's facility size & revenue - not artificially constrained to "increase scarcity."

 

I mean, if teachers wanted to teach for free without any profit involved now - they are totally free to! No one is stopping them from setting up their own free non-profit universities! The reason they haven't - is because they don't want to spend their whole lives doing something for free.

 

However, I do agree that the traditional rite-of-passage of spending upteen thousands of $$$ to go live on campus for 4 years to get a collegiate degree - is becoming financially prohibitive for too many and this will eventually be replaced with more virtual online self-education. Which is much cheaper and accessible to all. Some work would still have to be done in person, but that would only be a much smaller portion of the curriculum.

 

I think that one day, "Wiki U" will become more popular than brick unis...

[strawdog65]

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.

[strawdog65]

 

He actually has it backwards - the profit motive is what motivated people to build universities and pay teachers to teach there...to begin with! And the more paying students they get, the more teachers they can then hire. The number of teachers is limited by the school's facility size & revenue - not artificially constrained to "increase scarcity."

 

I mean, if teachers wanted to teach for free without any profit involved now - they are totally free to! No one is stopping them from setting up their own free non-profit universities! The reason they haven't - is because they don't want to spend their whole lives doing something for free.

 

 

 

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.

Edited January 3, 2011 by strawdog65

[gendao]

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.

 

Today there are many educators unable to find work because the profit structure imposes limits on how many teachers may be hired.

Lol, nobody is going to be working hard to produce goods in overabundance if they get nothing in return for it. See Communism - where everyone fairly sinks to the lowest common denominator of productivity. This Marxist "utopia" is nothing new, folks..

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

Lol, WRONG! When there are no lower minimal limits on productivity, people will cease being productive. People only work as much as they "need" to. This naive "logic" is like saying if our work weeks weren't "limited" to 40 hours - then people would be working as long as they could!!

 

And I know some teachers. Its one of the most employable fields because there is more of a scarcity of teachers than students. They have absolutely no problem finding work today.

 

Anyhow, I disagree with his reasoning...but draw some similar conclusions about how technology will both lower the cost of and increase access to information. So, there will be a lot more "open-sourcing" due to the minimal effort and cost of doing so.

[strawdog65]

[strawdog65]

Lol, nobody is going to be working hard to produce goods in overabundance if they get nothing in return for it. See Communism - where everyone fairly sinks to the lowest common denominator of productivity. This Marxist "utopia" is nothing new, folks..Lol, WRONG! When there are no lower minimal limits on productivity, people will cease being productive. People only work as much as they "need" to. This naive "logic" is like saying if our work weeks weren't "limited" to 40 hours - then people would be working as long as they could!!

 

And I know some teachers. Its one of the most employable fields because there is more of a scarcity of teachers than students. They have absolutely no problem finding work today.

 

Anyhow, I disagree with his reasoning...but draw some similar conclusions about how technology will both lower the cost of and increase access to information. So, there will be a lot more "open-sourcing" due to the minimal effort and cost of doing so.

 

 

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!

[strawdog65]

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!

[Sunya]

Lol, nobody is going to be working hard to produce goods in overabundance if they get nothing in return for it.

 

Depends what you mean by "working hard" If you mean menial physical labor then machines can take care of that, but of course engineers and scientists will still work hard, but you're assuming that most people just work to earn a paycheck. That isn't true. People other things in return like seeing the fruits of their labor go to something meaningful and productive. Look up the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. You don't seem to acknowledge that intrinsic motivation exists.

 

See Communism - where everyone fairly sinks to the lowest common denominator of productivity. This Marxist "utopia" is nothing new, folks..Lol,

 

I'm not sure how you could say that about communism since communism never existed. You must be preferring to socialism. Anyway, this is neither since this system has the absence of money entirely. There is no sharing the wealth. There is no wealth. Good are produced based on demand through a direct relationship with supply, and supply is created and sustained to be abundant.

[joeblast]

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?

are you kidding me? You've changed the thread topic three times - and you respond to very constructive criticisms with a twist/deflection and try to put the onus on me to come up with a mythical plan for a future society? I never signed up for that, bro, nor do I care to bother musing about it.

 

Its pretty odd that you strive to keep the onus off of yourself to logically support the idea you have put forth. Its been assailed by reason and reality, its not holding up, and your only recourse ignoring these criticisms has been to proclaim a failure of messaging (false) or lament that there arent other ideas being presented? (misdirection)

 

I certainly hope you arent as false with yourself in terms of your spiritual practices. The Venus project made a whipping post of itself by offering tons of stupendously verbose presented-as-aphorisms chock full of ignorance regarding very plain and real factors of the reality we find ourselves in. Any such "future construct" is going to have to withstand the full light of day, my friend.

[strawdog65]

are you kidding me? You've changed the thread topic three times - and you respond to very constructive criticisms with a twist/deflection and try to put the onus on me to come up with a mythical plan for a future society? I never signed up for that, bro, nor do I care to bother musing about it.

 

Its pretty odd that you strive to keep the onus off of yourself to logically support the idea you have put forth. Its been assailed by reason and reality, its not holding up, and your only recourse ignoring these criticisms has been to proclaim a failure of messaging (false) or lament that there arent other ideas being presented? (misdirection)

 

I certainly hope you arent as false with yourself in terms of your spiritual practices. The Venus project made a whipping post of itself by offering tons of stupendously verbose presented-as-aphorisms chock full of ignorance regarding very plain and real factors of the reality we find ourselves in. Any such "future construct" is going to have to withstand the full light of day, my friend.

 

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.

[joeblast]

Sorry that you interpret direct plainspeak as ill mannered, pragmatism as closed mindedness - you've sidestepped those points of contention yet again, choosing to focus on me instead of the lack of solid foundation beneath the ideas you presented. My not presenting an idea for consideration does nothing to address the VP's catastrophic issues, it is nothing but a straw man argument to draw attention away from the prior issue at hand - if you dont analyze and break through the tough problems, the paradigm crumbles when the full weight of the issues comes to bear. Whereas you could have procured a positive from the light shone on areas where critical fractures will form, it is you who focuses on the negative - but your ego wont let you focus on your own negatives, where the real work is to be done - it has dictated that you lash out at me instead to cover glaring omissions of reality? For if this is a serious venture as you purport, reality must be considered - otherwise this is truly but a theoretical thought experiment.

 

Good Day, strawdog. Nothing more for me to add that hasnt been said already, and a few different ways.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

joeblast, on 18 July 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

 

If you want my honest estimate, this planet will easily support 250+ Billion before the game's done here. Sure its prudent to be cautious, but people throughout history have constantly looked around them and dreamed nothing more grandiose than the glass ceiling immediately above them would be feasible.

 

I guess I have a little more faith in human creativity, ingenuity, and the technical possibilities the tao contains

 

I gotta keep remembering what we're dealing with here...

[strawdog65]

[Trash Filter]

Strawdog, thanks for creating such an excellent well needed thread!

 

We all really need to picture in detail what kind of world we really want to see, because the next few years are probably going to be tough and we need to root-in our manifestation. A quick transition to a more utopian new world order may be painful...I think what it really boils down to is our superhuman identity has to be let out of the bag finally.

 

1. If us folk become truly aware of what we are, what we are capable of, and what exactly happens when we die, and how to prepare for death, it would shape the values of all humans into a more sustainable future. This must be functionally demonstrated in the public domain. This is the crux that would shift our paradigm. Obiviously current resources in our current perception are not enough to solve our issue, with our new values and perceptions new resources will become percievable and created for us all.

 

2. Also the fact we are not alone in this universe, and we can learn from and be mentored by ancestors more mature then us- this would also speed our transition. (Some of the world governments have released some watered down documents on e.g. ufos including landings in the flesh but its very modest and slow release).

 

If we can shape our need for these issues, we can avoid our current path of constantly augementing ourselves with pure technology and silicon, and exploiting the earth unsustainably. We can avoid the possible future product line like the- "Ichip" (internet/phone/mp3 chip and other things against our permission{tracking/control}) inserted into our skull or under the skin! Where mothers expect their children to take it, like a vacine. lol

 

TF

[strawdog65]

Strawdog, thanks for creating such an excellent well needed thread!

 

We all really need to picture in detail what kind of world we really want to see, because the next few years are probably going to be tough and we need to root-in our manifestation. A quick transition to a more utopian new world order may be painful...I think what it really boils down to is our superhuman identity has to be let out of the bag finally.

 

1. If us folk become truly aware of what we are, what we are capable of, and what exactly happens when we die, and how to prepare for death, it would shape the values of all humans into a more sustainable future. This must be functionally demonstrated in the public domain. This is the crux that would shift our paradigm. Obiviously current resources in our current perception are not enough to solve our issue, with our new values and perceptions new resources will become percievable and created for us all.

 

2. Also the fact we are not alone in this universe, and we can learn from and be mentored by ancestors more mature then us- this would also speed our transition. (Some of the world governments have released some watered down documents on e.g. ufos including landings in the flesh but its very modest and slow release).

 

If we can shape our need for these issues, we can avoid our current path of constantly augementing ourselves with pure technology and silicon, and exploiting the earth unsustainably. We can avoid the possible future product line like the- "Ichip" (internet/phone/mp3 chip and other things against our permission{tracking/control}) inserted into our skull or under the skin! Where mothers expect their children to take it, like a vacine. lol

 

TF

 

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!

[strawdog65]

As an example of what is not desired..... Logan's run

 

A future society with a grim vision......

 

But a very cool movie.

[strawdog65]

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.