Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2013, 07:08 AM
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
(20-01-2013 06:16 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  I need to work on my delivery with you. Consider

Me quoting the Bible should always be taken as joshing.
...

Just bear in mind that the Aspie mind is a literal mind.

Try saying things, to Luminon, like "Let's toast the bride" and observe the reaction.

Ohmy
Well, I'm an experienced, well-adjusted Aspie. At first I imagine the wedding guests with flamethrowers, I dismiss that, laugh inside a little and then think what the hell that nonsense really meant. By then most of the guests already turned to the bride and raised a glass. Smile

Chas, I'll keep that in mind. I like to quote Bible too, but in all seriousness. New Testament has some good quotes. I could totally use Sermon on the mountain to sell RBE to Christians Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2013, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2013 10:36 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Luminon.

I am not thinking with fear. Hierarchy is one of the main ingredients in vast human suffering and the destruction of the planet. To assume that it can somehow be harnessed to fix all of our problems is akin to battered wife syndrome. We know it doesn't work, so why continue to use it when there are other avenues to explore?

Could you explain that to me in greater detail? Because right now it sounds like, "We'll wave our magic wand."
Hey. I'll explain. At school I currently do a lot with constitution and human rights. There are personal rights and then there are political rights. Among political rights there's free speech and stuff, but also the right of association, of making civil groups. And I think this right is not going anywhere. If people want to form a civil association, they can. And if they want to have a hierarchy in that association, they can. A social ladder, a pecking order, anything they want.
My only concern is to make sure with RBE that they cannot be blackmailed economically to obey. Nobody should be able to extort people by threatening to take their food and housing away. RBE would do that. Once people are secure in that aspect, I think hierarchies won't be nearly as dangerous as you think. Removing this political right would be dangerous.

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  On local currency:
-It illustrates that capitalism is about growth
-The system you described is still capitalistic

A man jumps off a cliff. He proclaims to the world, "I'm flying. They said I'd never fly, but I'm flying. This is incredible." To which the world responds, "Actually, you're falling." But that man doesn't listen. He falls for a while, content with his remarkable achievement, but slowly, as time marches forward, he see's the ground. And it gets closer. At some point he realises that he's falling and the he will be dashed upon the rocks. The only question is, does he realise in time to do anything about it?

Capitalism doesn't work. Hierarchy doesn't work. Unlimited growth doesn't work. We are falling. Our species is in overshoot. This is not a worry on the horizon, this is now. The Holocene extinction is now. The Holocene extinction is occurring because we are in deficit spending. We have to chew through ecosystems and entire species to keep us alive. This is not "working". This is failing.

Capitalism is a few hundred years old. Our species is over a hundred thousand. Our genus is over two million. This notion that we cannot live without capitalism is patently ridiculous.

Capitalists are what Ray Anderson calls plunderers.

That's like saying, I'll swim in front of the great white shark with a bag of fish heads but I'll only give them to the shark one at a time.

It doesn't work that way.

A capitalist without growth is not a capitalist.
He's not? Ah. Please, don't tell them that and all will be fine. You're not a capitalist. I'm not a capitalist. But imagine me in a situation of explaining RBE to a capitalist. (Dom?) "What am I gonna do?" a capitalist asks. "Will they drive me to a gas chamber, because in the new order all my creative business skills are useless? Or will I have to re-learn everything?"
So how do I answer?
Let's say I have Asperger's and it means among other things that my executive function is impaired. However, capitalists might be essentially people with very good executive function. Is there anything wrong about that?

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  What you're describing is sounding more and more like a centralised economy. That's a terrible idea.
It can't be centralized, if it's done by a network of computers, local and global. And if the resources are declared a common heritage of all humanity and shared according to real needs.

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  If that's the case, then we're dead.
Not if we understand the executive function in people and educate them to use it for the good of all.

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That's a pretty egregious distortion of facts.

There is absolutely nothing centralised about the open source movement. That things evolve into ESSs is not the same as a central body dictating standards.

Anyhoo, we're very far apart on this one.

The danger of centralised standardisation is when people want to do something else. What do you do with them?
Try to work out a solution, of course. If someone needs to allocate 128 bytes and can only 64, then he should speak to the computer guy and see if anything can be done about it. There's no principial reason why it shouldn't. They'll both have something to eat and a place to live at the end of the day, so there's no reason to make a big deal out of such things. That's one side of RBE.

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Philosophically, feeding everyone is great. Makes me feel all warm and bubbly inside. But if we feed everyone, all the time, no matter what, then people have no worries about giving birth to new babies. Because they're guaranteed food. So they'll have more babies, who will have still more babies. That's more of the same problem we're facing; the human population explosion.

If there is some city sector where all the food is kept and doled out, but the overall quantity of food never goes up, THEN you have a limiter. Want more kids? You get less food because this is all we have.

population x consumption = carrying capacity

So if by "eliminating scarcity" you mean "ensuring there is always a supply" then that solution won't work.

We have been increasing our carrying capacity for about 5 000 years. If the solution does not stop that growth and if the solution does not decrease our carrying capacity, then it's not a solution. It's just shuffling things around.
I am basically a democrat. I consider power and rule a waste of time and human potential. Everyone should rule themselves. But nobody is fit to rule without getting educated and trained first. Therefore, the basis of democracy is education. Lots and lots of education. In RBE, this must involve lots of active and fun life. So much fun and pursuit of interests, that women will see childbearing as a comparative chore. As Fresco says and I paraphrase, do not give a little girl pink clothes, Barbie dolls and toy houses. If she ever expresses interest in reactors, bacteria, transistors or cadavers, let her learn about these ungirly things and let her pursue this career. Do not fit her into gender role of housekeeping and childbearing, support her in her chosen career.
You'll be surprised what this will do with birth rates Cool

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  No, but my question is, by what mechanism is a surplus produced in the first place?

In Our culture, a surplus is produced because there is a clear division between those that own the means of production and those that do not. Those that do not own the means of production do not at any time own the products produced via the use of those means of production. Only the owners of the means of production own the products. In order to get at those products, which the labourer must lest he starve to death, the labourers trades their labour time and energy for it. But it is not a 1:1 trade. The labourers toil for 40+ hours a week, producing vastly more product than they themselves could ever possibly consume. But they are impelled to work harder than they would need to work if they were just producing for themselves because if they refuse, then they forfeit their access to all products owned by the capital owners. Thus labourers are IMPELED to produce a surplus. Our system is a surplus producing engine. It is what it is built to do and it does it very well. That is the mechanism that enables the production of a surplus in our system.

In egalitarian societies, there is no mechanism to impel anyone to produce more than they need because the labour load is SHARED across the group. Production levels will be kept above the subsistence level, but any surplus production or luxury production is kept to a minimum because in order to get everyone to work harder, there must be consensus across the group. Thus surplus production is kept to a minimum if it's pursued at all. Not only is there no mechanism in place to impel anyone to produce a surplus, there is a mechanism in place that constrains it.

So by what mechanism is a surplus produced in RBE?
I think your description of surplus production isn't precise. Currently, the surplus is produced by technology and competition. People may produce a lot, but technology replaces people and produces even more than people, if we only want. Competition uses technology to create an equivalent amount of goods, but several times over, because there are several competitors per one market. This is how the surplus arises in the current system, people all make the same thing under different brands and then try to sell it to each other. The market gets saturated quickly and the rest is called surplus.

In RBE there is no competition, only technology. Technology will produce according to the available resources and a sophisticated digital survey and statistical evaluation of public demand. Due to no human labor (inefficient) the surplus could be made really great through technology - but there is no need, because there is no competition. Competition makes the surplus.

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I am a HUGE fan of Karl Marx. An absolutely brilliant man. His critique is so spot on, so insightful, it boggles the mind how one man could have so much, so right. His analysis of the situation is beyond compare. His solutions are terrible.

Fresco seems to analyse the situation very well. That doesn't mean that his solution is worth a damn. One does not necessarily flow from the the other.

In the 1960s, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, an absolute indictment of the unfettered use of chemical agents. That book is cited as one of the single most important things to the development of the green movement. Carson's analysis was spot on (if not really depressing to read). But the solutions that flowed from it are ultimately useless.
Well, Fresco is an engineer. Engineers are the solution people. Was any of the above an engineer? Seems to me that not, they were ideologues. An ideology is a very limited, one-sided plan of action, it necessarily gets something right and something wrong. It's a half-assed "solution". Only philosophers or an engineer like Fresco seeks real solutions for everyone, even those we don't like. Fresco says back in 50's he went to KKK group in Miami. He went to flat Earth believing Muslims. He went to youth gang areas. He created solutions even for them. And similarly, I sometimes hang out with anarchocapitalists Wink

(20-01-2013 10:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The uniformity of being nice I can live with. Won't happen, but I can live with it.

But the notion of someone being able to dictate the parameters of uniformity... that's downright scary.

The notion of doing away with the individual... that's just terrifying.

I see such a massive disconnect between the search for self-improvement being the primary motivator and the abolition of the concept of the individual. These things are diametrically opposed.

So my question is this. What is the full scope of this idea of uniformity? Beyond the brochure platitudes of "everyone will be nice and share and be happy"? How deep does this go? What exactly is outlawed? What are the proposed mechanisms of enforcement? Who decides? What happens to those that deviate?
I have a question too. What does individuality mean? How do you define it? I mean, I can't take precautions for something if I don't know what it is. If you give a blueprint to an engineer anywhere in the world, you get back always the same thing. The same works with a chemical formula and a pharmacist.

I'll have to explain better. You see the niceness and uniformity as something that we start to impose and the society goes somewhere from there. This is not how it works. Instead, we use social engineering to create a society (RBE) which does not provoke in people the behavior that we find that hurts the society and the people.
There are today many folks saying "nah, human nature!" "People just do that for no reason!" "You can't tell us what to do!". When sailing around their island, we stick wax into our ears so their dangerous song doesn't lead our ship on reefs. Our way leads to the very worstest and baddest people that nobody likes. We dress like them, we talk like them and we start living among them like one of them. This is how we study not these people, but their environment. We must study the environment and find out, what in it makes people do what they do we don't like. We don't freak out when something happens, we just ask what's going on. We become really wise that way, like Jacque Fresco. Then we work out a solution and apply it while still in our "disguise" of that person we don't like, we apply it as one of them, from within the group. Not as white collar people with glasses and fancy suitcase and posh accent. We find out their problems, what makes their life miserable, and we use the knowledge of social engineering to work out a solution to change their environment. Not just the people, like in psychology. We study also the environment and change the environment. We leave people alone, we don't force them to do anything. We make their environment better and they'll change their behavior. What if they won't? Then we study them again, obviously! Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Hey, Luminon.

Quote:My only concern is to make sure with RBE that they cannot be blackmailed economically to obey.

My contention is that this is the very function of hierarchy. I'm asking how it can be anything else. So far you're responding with, "it just will". I'm looking for something more concrete.

And are you suggesting that forming hierarchies is a political right?

Quote:He's not? Ah. Please, don't tell them that and all will be fine. You're
not a capitalist. I'm not a capitalist. But imagine me in a situation of
explaining RBE to a capitalist. (Dom?) "What am I gonna do?" a
capitalist asks. "Will they drive me to a gas chamber, because in the
new order all my creative business skills are useless? Or will I have to
re-learn everything?"

So how do I answer?

Let's say I have Asperger's and it means among other things that my executive function
is impaired. However, capitalists might be essentially people with very
good executive function. Is there anything wrong about that?

I didn't understand a lick of that.

Quote:It can't be centralized, if it's done by a network of computers, local
and global. And if the resources are declared a common heritage of all
humanity and shared according to real needs.

That just sounds like an automated central economy.

Quote:I am basically a democrat. I consider power and rule a waste of time and
human potential. Everyone should rule themselves. But nobody is fit to
rule without getting educated and trained first. Therefore, the basis of
democracy is education. Lots and lots of education.

Education is great, but it never controls things with any degree of reliability and it doesn't eliminate material realities.

Quote:In RBE, this must involve lots of active and fun life. So much fun and
pursuit of interests, that women will see childbearing as a comparative
chore.

Overriding material reality with cultural concerns never works. Not even with enforcement.

The fact of the matter is, a lot of women want to have children. For them, no amount of frolicking is going to curb that very powerful instinct.

Plus, even if you do manage to convince the entire population that childbearing is a chore (which will never happen), then you've just killed off your society.

Quote:As Fresco says and I paraphrase, do not give a little girl pink clothes,
Barbie dolls and toy houses. If she ever expresses interest in
reactors, bacteria, transistors or cadavers, let her learn about these
ungirly things and let her pursue this career. Do not fit her into
gender role of housekeeping and childbearing, support her in her chosen
career.

Hate to break it to you, but there are nuclear physicist women with children. I'm all for the deconstruction of gender roles. But having children is not a gender role.

Quote:I think your description of surplus production isn't precise.

Actually I'm positive it's the other way around.

Quote:Currently,
the surplus is produced by technology and competition. People may
produce a lot, but technology replaces people and produces even more
than people, if we only want. Competition uses technology to create an
equivalent amount of goods, but several times over, because there are
several competitors per one market. This is how the surplus arises in
the current system, people all make the same thing under different
brands and then try to sell it to each other. The market gets saturated
quickly and the rest is called surplus.

Technology and competition cannot produce anything. They are abstract ideas. Humans use infrastructure and the means of production to produce. Because we're real.

Also, what do you mean by technology? Automation? Perhaps the internal combustion engine? Humans have been producing surpluses steadily for 5 000 years at least. Is agriculture itself the technology you're referring to?

You understanding of what competition is and what it's influence is seems quite confused to me.

Quote:In RBE there is no competition, only technology. Technology will produce
according to the available resources and a sophisticated digital survey
and statistical evaluation of public demand. Due to no human labor
(inefficient) the surplus could be made really great through technology -
but there is no need, because there is no competition. Competition
makes the surplus.

I disagree. Competition does not make the surplus.

I cue into the notion 'produce according to the available resources'. What does that mean exactly?

Quote:Well, Fresco is an engineer. Engineers are the solution people. Was any
of the above an engineer? Seems to me that not, they were ideologues.

Dude, I like you and I respect you. Please believe that. But I have to say that this is one of the worst arguments I've heard in a long time.

Quote:I have a question too. What does individuality mean? How do you define it?

No. The onus is on Fresco to define it because he's the one suggesting we eliminate it.

I know what I think an individual is and I know why I value it. If he shares my definition, then he must be stopped. If he has a different definition, then I'm willing to listen.

Quote:Instead, we use social engineering to create a society (RBE) which does
not provoke in people the behavior that we find that hurts the society
and the people.

I have no doubt that that is the intent. My questions revolve around HOW.

Quote:We must study the environment and find out, what in it makes people do what they do we don't like.

I agree. The effect of environment on behaviour is huge.

Quote:We don't freak out when something happens, we just ask what's going on.

That, to me, sounds like restorative justice or process consultation.

GETTING BACK ON TRACK.

I have two big concerns as relates to the original topic.

1 - How does RBE intend to IMPLEMENT the changes it seeks?
2 - What does it mean to eliminate the individual?

The first question is just something I want to know because I have intimate knowledge of the systemic issues faced by Our culture at the moment and I know that alternatives that do not address them in a meaningful way will not only fail to replace them, but they will retain them. Same shit, different pile.

The second question has to do with the "Nazi alert". Some of the proposals sound vaguely repressive or totalitarian. I'm just trying to dispel my concern to my satisfaction, which I haven't been able to do yet.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
25-01-2013, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2013 09:40 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Hi Matt!

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  My contention is that this is the very function of hierarchy. I'm asking how it can be anything else. So far you're responding with, "it just will". I'm looking for something more concrete.

And are you suggesting that forming hierarchies is a political right?
Dead right on. It is a political right in modern, democratic systems. These systems are built bottoms-up, where the top people are responsible to the bottom people. Essentially, the tops are meant to be servers of the people. For no other reason or purpose they should be elevated above others, but by their willingness and extraordinary capacity to serve. Power is just an instrument, as a hoe, shovel or dynamite. Those who demonstrate such capacity need to be given the instruments.

If a hierarchy is built by concentrating the power at the top, the self-serving power with no external purpose (service), we create an institution that takes a life of its own. We call this system bureaucracy. This institution then follows three well-known rules. (I think Marx summed them up for us)
- Self-preservation.
- Accumulation of wealth and power.
- Deciding the agenda and policy.

In RBE there is no agenda or policy of decision making, all decisions are arrived at through gathering data and the decisions are automatized by computers, so they can be made in a really informed and effective way. In RBE nobody can or needs to accumulate wealth, everyone is rich, all wealth is a common heritage of mankind. And every citizen has more power and technology available than today. So the only thing that decides anything are computers and in RBE nothing is stable, no building or structure is permanent, all is rebuilt when the need comes. So nothing can preserve itself when it's not needed anymore.
Simply said, RBE is a system where bureaucracy does not occur.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I didn't understand a lick of that.
OK, let's say you try it now. Let's say you're a proponent of RBE and a businessman comes to you, asking what would his future look like in RBE. He might be concerned about fascism, about mandatory re-education (brainwashing) or even about being killed in concentration camp as an unwanted citizen class. How do you answer him? Does RBE have prepared questions to everything, or do we rather apply the science to the problems?

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:It can't be centralized, if it's done by a network of computers, local
and global. And if the resources are declared a common heritage of all
humanity and shared according to real needs.
That just sounds like an automated central economy.
Not central. The very opposite of central - distributed. It is an automated distributed economy. Thank you for asking this question so that I could come up with this definition.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Education is great, but it never controls things with any degree of reliability and it doesn't eliminate material realities.
RBE eliminates the material "realities", which are largely artificial today, a necessary product of our system. RBE is a different system, it does not have these problems, but that also means we need a different education. One can not be without the other.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Overriding material reality with cultural concerns never works. Not even with enforcement.

The fact of the matter is, a lot of women want to have children. For them, no amount of frolicking is going to curb that very powerful instinct.

Plus, even if you do manage to convince the entire population that childbearing is a chore (which will never happen), then you've just killed off your society.

Instinct is not an omnipotent force. Everyone can overcome instinct. We do it all the time. The etologist Konrad Lorenz proved, that wolves can and routinely do overcome their instincts, it is merely a question of reward. And our brain is much larger, we can understand and appreciate much greater rewards than a wolf. We already talked about the demographic transition. It is essentially increasing rewards for the people, so they obey their instincts less.
See more here. Of course, I do not speak about removing the instinct! It will always be present, always making sure we will be ready to replenish the population any time and we're good at that.

You still don't understand the basic principle of TVP, of social engineering. Don't force people to behave. All human behavior is lawful, people obey because the environment forces them. Change the environment and the people will change.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hate to break it to you, but there are nuclear physicist women with children. I'm all for the deconstruction of gender roles. But having children is not a gender role.
Fine, and how many children do these women in nuclear science have? Let me guess... 15-20 kids, I'd say. Maybe closer to 23. Those who know the overwhelming power of atom, know it is nothing compared to the omnipotent force of instinct Consider Rolleyes

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Technology and competition cannot produce anything. They are abstract ideas. Humans use infrastructure and the means of production to produce. Because we're real.

Also, what do you mean by technology? Automation? Perhaps the internal combustion engine? Humans have been producing surpluses steadily for 5 000 years at least. Is agriculture itself the technology you're referring to?

You understanding of what competition is and what it's influence is seems quite confused to me.
Any technology or knowledge. But regardless of that, what is the thing that prevents us from sharing all the production? Let's say we produce a surplus with technology, machines, labor, anything. Why can't we just share it?
Because of competition. Competition is the opposite of cooperation, it is exclusive and divisive and whatever is produced in competition, even if in surplus, it is privately kept and so there are extremes in wealth and extremes in poverty.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I disagree. Competition does not make the surplus.
As I said, competition excludes other people from partaking on a surplus, so they have to go and make a surplus of their own. Then they try to sell it to each other.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I cue into the notion 'produce according to the available resources'. What does that mean exactly?
Let's say you have an island. And you keep tabs in your computer on all that there is. You keep track how much there is water, how much food is produced every season, how much electricity you can get out of the local volcano and so on. Then you keep track of the number of settlers and make surveys of their needs. Then you calculate the demands per settler and get a result of how much settlers that island can sustain. And then yougive to these settlers what they asked for, because we operate in abundant environment, where there is inherently more resources than people need. If they ask for something we don't have, well, they can't have it. It's a real, real world out there. Basic needs have a priority and we already talked about these. Food, water, housing, healthcare and education.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Dude, I like you and I respect you. Please believe that. But I have to say that this is one of the worst arguments I've heard in a long time.
And worst explanation too. You see the world in a very complicated way, you complicate questions needlessly. You take precautions against this or that, not realizing that RBE is a system in which such questions don't have a meaning at all. Jacque Fresco had cut all the crap and bullshit that we have to guard against in the current system by designing a completely different bullshit-free system. We're so used to all this bullshit, that we think this is the basis of reality and it can not be otherwise, which is just another kind of bullshit that we believe in.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  No. The onus is on Fresco to define it because he's the one suggesting we eliminate it.

I know what I think an individual is and I know why I value it. If he shares my definition, then he must be stopped. If he has a different definition, then I'm willing to listen.
See below. Fresco's an engineer, his definition of individuality is different.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I have no doubt that that is the intent. My questions revolve around HOW.
There is no single how. We start ignorant, we admit ignorance and we apply THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. There are many scientific fields with many hows for each field, there is no single how. So when someone comes and says he has the one single HOW that solves everything when everyone will obey it, run. Run! And I wouldn't blame you if you kick his balls first.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I agree. The effect of environment on behaviour is huge.
Wonderful! This is what I wanted to hear. Now, do you think this huge effect is greater than our instinct? Yes? No? Both answers are bullshit. The fact is, it is always a question of a degree, of environment and of applied science, whether one prevails over another. It's not physics, where nuclear force is always nominally stronger than gravity.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:We don't freak out when something happens, we just ask what's going on.
That, to me, sounds like restorative justice or process consultation.
It's the scientific observation, only in social science fieldwork we don't protect the experiment by staying out, we protect it by staying in and blending in. People don't behave the same if there's a guy in white above them, taking notes. They only say what they think if you become one of them.

When Jacque Fresco lived among savages on an island, he did nothing and he got a fish because everyone got a fish when a fisherman caught them. Then he asked for a canoe. He did nothing and he still got it. Then he kept doing nothing and one night he heard rustling outside. He went out and the savages were stealing his canoe! Yet he did nothing, just asked, "what is happening?" They told him, "You no use!"
Can you imagine how many centuries of suffering and social problems these "savages" just avoided? They made a canoe and gave it to a stranger, just like that. But by this the canoe did not disappear from the collective wealth of the island, it increased it. And when the stranger didn't use the canoe, they just took it and gave it to someone else who asked for it. Presumably, to someone who likes to relax by fishing and likes to see people smiling when they get a fish. And do you see how wise Fresco was by doing nothing, by not freaking out, only by observation? By leaving his pre-conceptions of private ownership out of the island? Is our definition of private ownership really that good and useful?

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  1 - How does RBE intend to IMPLEMENT the changes it seeks?

The first question is just something I want to know because I have intimate knowledge of the systemic issues faced by Our culture at the moment and I know that alternatives that do not address them in a meaningful way will not only fail to replace them, but they will retain them. Same shit, different pile.
My understanding is, that first a working city prototype needs to be built and this must be used to convince the people that it works and the people will convince the governments they want it. After that, it's essentially a war-time economy where industrial and natural resources are declared a common heritage of mankind and used for the RBE-building effort.
I feel you might have some objections here, so go ahead.

(24-01-2013 07:21 PM)Ghost Wrote:  2 - What does it mean to eliminate the individual?
The second question has to do with the "Nazi alert". Some of the proposals sound vaguely repressive or totalitarian. I'm just trying to dispel my concern to my satisfaction, which I haven't been able to do yet.
It means nothing, unless we know what individuality we mean.

We know that some individuality or individuality in some areas is not good. For example, we want our cars as non-individual as possible. When we turn the keys, we want the car to start every single time. When we step on brakes, we want the car to stop. We want a total uniformity in that area, we don't want let's say Jewish cars that don't start on Sabbath, Muslim cars with light sensors and calendar that work during Ramadan only at night and we don't want, let's say, KKK cars that don't brake when black children go over the crosswalk. We wouldn't tolerate individuality here, we essentially call it a failure. And we do our best to eliminate failure through quality control. In RBE education is the quality control.

OK, but what do we check for in the quality control? For example, a moldy cheese is a disgusting, unhealthy thing. But some moldy cheeses are considered a delicacy. So we need to know which individuality (failures) do we want to eliminate. Because there is no single individuality, that I or Fresco could pin down, you need to fire up your ethical brain circuits and come up with a definition. I already gave you some hints Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2013, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 09:13 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Hey, Luminon.

Quote:Dead right on. It is a political right in modern, democratic systems.
These systems are built bottoms-up, where the top people are responsible
to the bottom people. Essentially, the tops are meant to be servers of
the people. For no other reason or purpose they should be elevated above
others, but by their willingness and extraordinary capacity to serve.
Power is just an instrument, as a hoe, shovel or dynamite. Those who
demonstrate such capacity need to be given the instruments.

Hmm. I couldn't be more opposed to that. I mean sure, people have the right to do whatever they want, but as Chris Rock said, you can drive a car with your foot if you want but _________________. (ON EDIT: Sorry. Fell asleep on that one. The quote is, "Shit, you can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good fucking idea!")

As I said before. Hierarchy is a scorpion. It will sting us every single time.

Quote:...everyone is rich...

So there will be zero cap on growth. Same shit, different pile then.

Quote:Simply said, RBE is a system where bureaucracy does not occur.

I still feel that this is far more "wave our magic wand" than it is worked out in practical terms.

Quote:OK, let's say you try it now. Let's say you're a proponent of RBE and a
businessman comes to you, asking what would his future look like in RBE.
He might be concerned about fascism, about mandatory re-education
(brainwashing) or even about being killed in concentration camp as an
unwanted citizen class. How do you answer him? Does RBE have prepared
questions to everything, or do we rather apply the science to the
problems?

I have absolutely no idea.

Quote:Not central. The very opposite of central - distributed. It is an automated distributed economy. Thank you for asking this question so that I could come up with this definition.

The computers make the decisions right? Not everyone? Just the computers? If that's the case, then regardless of if there's one in every city, the decision making for the economy is still centralised. The wealth "belongs to everyone" but they can't make the decisions. The computers do. That's a centralised economy.

Quote:Instinct is not an omnipotent force. Everyone can overcome instinct. We do it all the time.

It's not reliable because we don't overcome instinct, we suppress it. It isn't reliable because it can, and frequently does, re-assert itself.

Quote:Fine, and how many children do these women in nuclear science have? Let
me guess... 15-20 kids, I'd say. Maybe closer to 23. Those who know the
overwhelming power of atom, know it is nothing compared to the
omnipotent force of instinct

Well of course it isn't some absurd little old lady who lived in a shoe figure. But it's often more than one.

Replacement is 2.1. All of the industrialised countries are below 2.1 because it costs so much to raise a child. Eliminate that barrier, the fear of not being able to afford it, and watch the birthrate skyrocket.

Quote:Let's say we produce a surplus with technology,
machines, labor, anything. Why can't we just share it?

The issue isn't sharing the surplus, it's that the surplus exists in the first place.

Quote:As I said, competition excludes other people from partaking on a
surplus, so they have to go and make a surplus of their own. Then they
try to sell it to each other.

We are on different planets with this particular issue. I can't comment reasonably on what you've said because our models are fundamentally different. It would be comparing apples to oranges. So I guess all I can really say is that I have a fundamental disagreement with this model.

Quote:Let's say you have an island. And you keep tabs in your computer on all
that there is. You keep track how much there is water, how much food is
produced every season, how much electricity you can get out of the local
volcano and so on. Then you keep track of the number of settlers and
make surveys of their needs. Then you calculate the demands per settler
and get a result of how much settlers that island can sustain. And then
yougive to these settlers what they asked for, because we operate in
abundant environment, where there is inherently more resources than
people need. If they ask for something we don't have, well, they can't
have it. It's a real, real world out there. Basic needs have a priority
and we already talked about these. Food, water, housing, healthcare and
education.

So are you saying that the computer will only provide based on the carrying capacity of a specific area? It won't try to overharvest or strip mine or monocrop or anything we else to do to increase the carrying capacity of an area?

If the needs of everyone are to always be met, then it has to do those things because demand always increases. If it needs to respect the carrying capacity as is, then it can't meet everyone's demands because demand always increases. So which is it?

Oh, as a personal request, please don't use the term savage or savages. I find it deeply offensive.

Quote:By leaving his pre-conceptions of private ownership out of the island?
Is our definition of private ownership really that good and useful?

Well I mentioned before that I felt that the notion of the "stuff library" was pretty revolutionary.

Quote:My understanding is, that first a working city prototype needs to be
built and this must be used to convince the people that it works and the
people will convince the governments they want it. After that, it's
essentially a war-time economy where industrial and natural resources
are declared a common heritage of mankind and used for the RBE-building
effort.

I feel you might have some objections here, so go ahead.

No. No objections. I simply feel that there is no difference between this model and the Soviet economic model.

My only question is, now that everything is the common heritage of mankind, how is it employed in production?

Quote: For example, we want our cars as non-individual as possible. When we turn the keys, we want the car to start every single time.

I think it's safe to say that when people express concerns about the elimination of individuality, they aren't worried about cars.

If all it means is "shit's gonna work all the time" then I have no issue with that.

Quote:OK, but what do we check for in the quality control? For example, a
moldy cheese is a disgusting, unhealthy thing. But some moldy cheeses
are considered a delicacy. So we need to know which individuality
(failures) do we want to eliminate. Because there is no single
individuality, that I or Fresco could pin down, you need to fire up your
ethical brain circuits and come up with a definition. I already gave
you some hints [Image: wink.gif]

See, now this is the concerning bit.

If you eliminate non-turning on cars, I don't give a shit. Have at it.

If you tell people that they are no longer allowed to be, think or act a specific way, that's when it gets worrisome.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not some American Tea Party or libertarian nutbag screaming "Don't tread on me!" I'm a Canadian. We've outlawed all kinds of shit. Hate literature? Gone. Totally illegal. So I'm OK with the curtailing of certain freedoms for the benefit of the whole. But only the ones that hurt others. Some dude wants to blast another dude in the ass? Have at it. Ain't no thing but a chicken wing. But when you say, "we want to eliminate individuality," I question where the line is drawn. To me, it sounds very draconian and without more specific guidelines, I'll remain afraid of it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 07:34 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hmm. I couldn't be more opposed to that. I mean sure, people have the right to do whatever they want, but as Chris Rock said, you can drive a car with your foot if you want but _________________.

As I said before. Hierarchy is a scorpion. It will sting us every single time.
All right, let's count your absolute statements, this would be #1. I'm wary of absolutes, because in real world they don't exist. They're always dependent on real world properties, I learned that from electrotechnic calculations at high school, in some situations you get theoretically an infinite current, but in reality it's just a peak.
So what makes you think that hierarchy, we talk about bottom-heavy hierarchy, is dangerous?
And if it's dangerous, how can we make it safer? RBE is not a perfect system and doesn't have to be, it's just better than we have and improvable.


(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:...everyone is rich...
So there will be zero cap on growth. Same shit, different pile then.
That would be absolute #2. Absolutes are not an intelligent behavior. To be intelligent means to respond to and adapt to a present situation. Nobody can tell in advance if there will be growth or decrease in economic production! The only thing I can say for sure is, that in RBE any growth or decrease in production will be related to the collective needs of the people.
It will NOT be related to the ever-increasing supply of money, inflation and economic cycles of conjuncture and recession.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:OK, let's say you try it now. Let's say you're a proponent of RBE and a
businessman comes to you, asking what would his future look like in RBE.
He might be concerned about fascism, about mandatory re-education
(brainwashing) or even about being killed in concentration camp as an
unwanted citizen class. How do you answer him? Does RBE have prepared
questions to everything, or do we rather apply the science to the
problems?
I have absolutely no idea.
I don't want to sound like repeating meaningless phrases, but TVP is not a model or a technology. It's a way of thinking, a problem-solving method. Every time you encounter a problem and you don't have a solution, admit that you don't know and then apply the scientific method. Survey is an extremely important word, in RBE we don't make up our mind, we make surveys.

In this case, if there is a group of citizens who are not sure they'll have a place in RBE, you apply the scientific method.
Here I'd make an experiment, I'd need three people. I'd need a TVP-thinking expert, a computer expert and a psychologist or someone skilled in human resource department. I'd need these three people contact the group in question and make a survey of them as human resources.
I'd need the psychologist to make the people put their career skills into practical terms. Let's not say "I'm a pastor", but let's say "I have group management skills, public speech skills, small company management and maintenance, social worker skills, music playing and singing skills, theology, counseling, etc..." A computer expert would need to figure out a way how to put these data into a computer in a standardized and meaningful way. A TVP expert would probably then educate the people on how can they expect the system to respond, they put their data into the computer as a supply of HR and see the demand for them. Basically what I do now.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The computers make the decisions right? Not everyone? Just the computers? If that's the case, then regardless of if there's one in every city, the decision making for the economy is still centralised. The wealth "belongs to everyone" but they can't make the decisions. The computers do. That's a centralised economy.
That would be an absolute statement #3.
Depends on what do you mean by centralized and what do you mean by making decisions. Do computers make decisions? You can only do so, if you have a free will and an opinion. Computers don't have that, they execute programs depending on what input data they get. On everything we need to solve en masse, we make surveys. The surveys produce a large quantities of data that computers process and then perform actions based on the data and available resources.

As for centralization, we live in a real, natural world. Until there are computers embedded in every brick of our buildings, there will always be a degree of centralization. There is a degree of centralization in everything. It is called a structure. Everything has to have a structure. There is no clear distinction between the two, it is the question of a degree and subsidiarity. Even our body is centralized, we have several nerve plexuses (plexi?) and we have just one liver, just one heart, just one brain... And yet our body works. It doesn't mean centralization is good or bad, but the degree of centralization, the degree of structure that our body has is optimal for us. In RBE we will have to apply the scientific method to find an optimal degree of structure for a city.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  It's not reliable because we don't overcome instinct, we suppress it. It isn't reliable because it can, and frequently does, re-assert itself.
Give me an example, please.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:Fine, and how many children do these women in nuclear science have? Let
me guess... 15-20 kids, I'd say. Maybe closer to 23. Those who know the
overwhelming power of atom, know it is nothing compared to the
omnipotent force of instinct
Well of course it isn't some absurd little old lady who lived in a shoe figure. But it's often more than one.

Replacement is 2.1. All of the industrialised countries are below 2.1 because it costs so much to raise a child. Eliminate that barrier, the fear of not being able to afford it, and watch the birthrate skyrocket.
That would be an absolute statement #4. The change of population does not depend just on how many children a woman has! It depends also, in what age does she have them. Millions of old people die every year. So there's hell of a difference if a woman has 2.1 children in the age of 20 or in the age of 30. Even if all women in the developed world have 3 children, the pursuit of study, career and fun makes them put off the child-bearing till later and later, much towards the 30's. Meanwhile many old people die out. Such a woman then doesn't make any more children, she's usually too old for that. If a girl starts at 16, it's a different story, Uganda and Texas might tell...

Someone skilled in statistics and demographics should check what I say, but it seems to me this is how it works, it's not just the average, it's how soon we start procreating and how fast are the generations replaced. If we manage to narrow and shift the window of fertility, we get statistically fewer children even if they're 2.1 or more per woman.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  The issue isn't sharing the surplus, it's that the surplus exists in the first place.

We are on different planets with this particular issue. I can't comment reasonably on what you've said because our models are fundamentally different. It would be comparing apples to oranges. So I guess all I can really say is that I have a fundamental disagreement with this model.
Maybe it's just another absolute statement (that would be #5), but please tell me what do you think surplus is and why is it so bad. I could think of a number of qualifying and relativizing factors in a real world that wouldn't make it so bad.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  So are you saying that the computer will only provide based on the carrying capacity of a specific area? It won't try to overharvest or strip mine or monocrop or anything we else to do to increase the carrying capacity of an area?

If the needs of everyone are to always be met, then it has to do those things because demand always increases. If it needs to respect the carrying capacity as is, then it can't meet everyone's demands because demand always increases. So which is it?

If we program the computers to not overuse the carrying capacity, which we will, they won't do it.
But you should tell me why the demand always increases (that would be an absolute statement #6). We live in a natural, causal world, there is a cause behind everything. If you say a demand always increases, you have to tell why. And if you can tell why, we can apply the scientific method to make it not so, to make a solution. To make a system in which this factor does not exist.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Oh, as a personal request, please don't use the term savage or savages. I find it deeply offensive.
Oh, that was you? Sorry, I won't. I hope "tribesman" will do, should such a topic ever return.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  No. No objections. I simply feel that there is no difference between this model and the Soviet economic model.
That is, because you did not know until this moment what exactly centralization and decision-making means. You didn't have a clear, general, objective and necessary definition of these terms. And you didn't stop yourself and realize, "hey, there's something I don't know exactly, something that I have to look up on the net", you didn't know you didn't know, you went ahead believing you know. Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing", and this is a very important statement. If I know nothing, I need to do a survey or apply a scientific method, not believe and go ahead.

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  My only question is, now that everything is the common heritage of mankind, how is it employed in production?
I don't understand, it's a very general, open question. Generally said, we'll apply the scientific knowledge we already have in this area.

Btw, I counted about 6-7 absolute statements just in this post. I have to ask you, on which side of Force do you stand? Is it really peace and love? There is a rule of thumb I learned when I was just a padawan...
[Image: poster32534161ck8.jpg]
You see I have good reasons to be cryptic.
Laughat Big Grin Tongue

(25-01-2013 04:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I think it's safe to say that when people express concerns about the elimination of individuality, they aren't worried about cars.
If all it means is "shit's gonna work all the time" then I have no issue with that.

See, now this is the concerning bit.

If you eliminate non-turning on cars, I don't give a shit. Have at it.

If you tell people that they are no longer allowed to be, think or act a specific way, that's when it gets worrisome.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not some American Tea Party or libertarian nutbag screaming "Don't tread on me!" I'm a Canadian. We've outlawed all kinds of shit. Hate literature? Gone. Totally illegal. So I'm OK with the curtailing of certain freedoms for the benefit of the whole. But only the ones that hurt others. Some dude wants to blast another dude in the ass? Have at it. Ain't no thing but a chicken wing. But when you say, "we want to eliminate individuality," I question where the line is drawn. To me, it sounds very draconian and without more specific guidelines, I'll remain afraid of it.
Here I might get a little controversial, but I think this is one of the best parts of Fresco's thinking. We want things to work, to work uniformly well. The problem is, we don't apply the same criteria in people, in children. All current cultures are corrupt and corrupt culture produces corrupt people. Our culture is full of bullshit and we corrupt our children's minds with it.

We teach our children that "a seed grows into a plant." That is a very subversive form of bullshit. The seed doesn't grow. It is driven by the available sunlight, water, temperature and nutrients in soil. You take one of these things away and it stops growing.
Here I could extend this thinking. we see a human fetus and we say a person grows, we see a full-grown person. We don't see all the inputs of nature, time and society that had to go into that fetus so that it becomes a person. We think if we abort that fetus (which is a very risky, unhealthy and traumatic procedure, so it should be avoided) we destroy a real person. So the child gets born and then we think that's all that was necessary and we ignore the other inputs of nutrition, upbringing and education that mostly make person a person and we feel we did our duty to God. Bullshit.

Yes, there are things I'd make no effort to provide and perpetuate in the RBE systems. Outlawing is impossible, only not supporting. Santa Klaus flying on a sledge with magic reindeers. Cinderella, with a pumpkin magically turned into chariot. Jack on a beanstalk, that magically grew up into a magical sky land. And most of all, stupefying and conditioning child artifacts. Baby dolls for girls, toy guns for boys. So that when they grow up, girls are ready to make more babies (even though it's the most brutal thing they'll ever see and child care is a terribly unrewarding chore) and boys will be ready to obey commands and give up their will to some idiot to hurt and kill with real weapons. This is what I mean by conditioning.

Stupid children's books and programs. Teletubbies, absolutely. Sesame Street. Baa baa, said the sheep. Boo boo, said the cow. Bullshit. Stupidity. Because our children do not grow, they are grown. Their brains grow and prune neurons according to what is put into them. We fill our children's minds with stupidity and expect to be intelligent life on our planet?
There are facts and knowledge. Some of them are quite bizarre, so children can wait several years before learning them. But if children can learn about fierce predators from millions of years ago (dinosaurs) and about a small meat pump in our body that is the only thing keeping us alive (the heart) they can learn all kinds of facts like where babies come from, or how things are grown and how the world works.

We worship individuality, but children aren't individual, they're plain sheets of paper that we use to copy ourselves, our beliefs, our bullshit. Children don't exactly have individuality, and if they have, it's quite a useless one. The "individuality" we give them is just a copy of our bullshit. I'm concerned with giving children mental instruments to build their individuality correctly and expertly. Atheists don't tell their children what to think, but how to think, so they can really think by themselves. This is the same, we need to teach our children how to learn and live, so they can learn and live functionally and then expertly construct their individuality. If a child draws a stick figure, that's not an individuality, that's not endearing, that's a lousy job at teaching the child to draw a person expertly. If a child makes a logical fallacy or argument from God, it's a lousy job at teaching the child to think. This is why education is a quality control. First there has to be quality, then each person will be ready to construct a real and functional individuality of their own. What we have today is not a true individuality, it's popculture and bad quality control.

Now, I guess your question is, how do we tell what is or isn't bullshit. Generally, I'd say it has nothing to do with political correctness but everything with factual correctness. Two guys blasting each other in the ass isn't for children, because they don't yet know how sexual arousal works. But they can understand that there are genes in many species of mammals that do two things, sometimes one, sometimes the other. In one mode of expression these genes make us do more of the same (promiscuity) but due to some epigenetic factors in small percentage of population these genes naturally make the mammals homosexual or perhaps bisexual. And that's factually correct, unless scientists find it out better.

But please don't think all I do is just finding flaws or appeals to scientific method and surveys.
From my experience with philosophy, I can responsibly say there is an absolute, necessary, general and objective knowledge that is attainable to us and on which we must base all our thinking, planning and doing. There are things we can stand for and fight for. For example, it is possible to prove that our current civilization is corrupt (relativism, since Descartes) and we need a non-corrupt civilization. If you want any specific examples, I'd have to pull out my scripts from the lectures... For now just let's say all the known medieval and later names like Descartes, Hegel and so on are bullshitters from a corrupt society. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle still had their bearings on truth. It's just that Fresco is not a philosopher, he deals with concrete problems of our system.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 09:40 AM
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Hey, Luminon.

Quote:All right, let's count your absolute statements, this would be #1. I'm
wary of absolutes, because in real world they don't exist. They're
always dependent on real world properties, I learned that from
electrotechnic calculations at high school, in some situations you get
theoretically an infinite current, but in reality it's just a peak.

So what makes you think that hierarchy, we talk about bottom-heavy hierarchy, is dangerous?

And if it's dangerous, how can we make it safer? RBE is not a perfect
system and doesn't have to be, it's just better than we have and
improvable.

Explosions affect their physical surroundings. Is that too much of an absolute statement?

Hierarchy necessarily concentrates power at the top. If it did not, it would not function. Hierarchy is necessarily exclusive. If it was inclusive, it would not function. Hierarchy demands exploitation. If it did not, it would not function. I've been very clear from the beginning why hierarchy sucks. You keep saying that you can fix it, but all I keep hearing is that you just will. Wave a magic wand, problem solved. But I've heard no practical solutions. If you tell me that RBE is necessarily hierarchical then I'm out. I can't support that kind of alternative.

Quote:Absolutes are not an intelligent behavior.

That is your first and last allowed ad hom.

And just so you know, this absolute statement #x crap really pisses me off.

Quote:Computers don't have that, they execute programs depending on what input data they get.

And who programs the computers? Everyone? Or a small cadre?

Quote:That would be an absolute statement #4. The change of population does
not depend just on how many children a woman has! It depends also, in
what age does she have them. Millions of old people die every year. So
there's hell of a difference if a woman has 2.1 children in the age of
20 or in the age of 30. Even if all women in the developed world have 3
children, the pursuit of study, career and fun makes them put off the
child-bearing till later and later, much towards the 30's. Meanwhile
many old people die out. Such a woman then doesn't make any more
children, she's usually too old for that. If a girl starts at 16, it's a
different story, Uganda and Texas might tell...



Someone skilled in statistics and demographics should check what I say,
but it seems to me this is how it works, it's not just the average, it's
how soon we start procreating and how fast are the generations
replaced. If we manage to narrow and shift the window of fertility, we
get statistically fewer children even if they're 2.1 or more per woman.

You don't understand this system. 2.1 is called replacement. That means that at that rate, the population will remain stable. Go above that, population increases. Go below, population decreases.

Overall, at this point, I no longer feel like we're having a conversation. I feel like you're talking AT me rather than WITH me. I think my interest in this topic has been exhausted.

Quote:Is it really peace and love?

I've been responding to your post as I read it. Then I got to this. Remember how I said that other thing was your only allowed ad hom? Well, you just blew it.

This statement is a prototypical ad hominem. It has sum zero to do with my arguments. It is a shot at me as a person.

Nothing makes me angrier than someone throwing my signature back in my face. Because 1 - don't fucking do that and 2 - it's an ad hom attack.

This conversation is officially over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2013 11:12 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Explosions affect their physical surroundings. Is that too much of an absolute statement?
It might be. Depends on what what kind of surroundings in what way. But fair enough. I think we should determine the definition of truth. The truth about truth. I can't think of an example of truth right now, but I can tell you about facts. And facts are like a water. You can't hold water, you always need some kind of vessel. The vessel of facts is context. A factual statement within its own context is a truth, but it's only as absolute as the context.
Therefore, you can't make statements without a complete, appropriate context. This is why Fresco says our language is corrupted too, we can make statements in it that are not based in reality or aren't even thinkable.

(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hierarchy necessarily concentrates power at the top. If it did not, it would not function. Hierarchy is necessarily exclusive. If it was inclusive, it would not function. Hierarchy demands exploitation. If it did not, it would not function. I've been very clear from the beginning why hierarchy sucks. You keep saying that you can fix it, but all I keep hearing is that you just will. Wave a magic wand, problem solved. But I've heard no practical solutions. If you tell me that RBE is necessarily hierarchical then I'm out. I can't support that kind of alternative.
Well, RBE is the least hierarchical system, actually. Our conversation about hierarchies was rather hypothetical, though pertinent. For example, our families are based on a hierarchy. The father is the head of the family, the mother at home is in charge of house and children and has some limited rights towards the man, and both are above children.
However, Jacque Fresco himself doubts that families would exist in RBE. Most people won't want a family. As we understand them now, they are created by necessity. Hierarchy is our reaction to a collective necessity or threat. In an environment of threats, hierarchy allows us to act in an organized way and survived. In this context, hierarchy is good.
If we remove such threats (economic survival, for example) we can expect that hierarchies will invent artificial reasons to stay in power (terrorists, unbelievers, etc) and they will become evil. In RBE there is no reason or grounds for existence of most common and powerful hierarchies.

(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  That is your first and last allowed ad hom.
And this is your first and last allowed getting personally offended for no reason. We don't have absolute knowledge. This is why we have countless sciences, each to cover their ground. And we have a philosophy, that is so general, that it covers that which is general and objective. This is the natural world, in which we are not justified making absolute statements. If there was an absolute truth in this universe, it would be as big as the universe itself.
Adaptation is acting intelligently within the limits of reality. Ideology is acting within an unreal framework (for example absolutes), without any intelligent, corrective mechanisms. For example, communists absolutely claimed that the capitalists are evil... And they were partially wrong, the truth is, there were some good and some evil capitalists and a great deal of grey zone between them.

(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  And just so you know, this absolute statement #x crap really pisses me off.
No wonder, Socrates pissed off half of the Athens with it.

(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  And who programs the computers? Everyone? Or a small cadre?
The open-source community would be the best candidate. Besides them, the programmers in a particular city who understand the local needs and specifics.

(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  You don't understand this system. 2.1 is called replacement. That means that at that rate, the population will remain stable. Go above that, population increases. Go below, population decreases.
Yes, I don't understand. I suppose this replacement is a technical term from the science of demography or sociology and I'll have to look it up.

(26-01-2013 09:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Overall, at this point, I no longer feel like we're having a conversation. I feel like you're talking AT me rather than WITH me. I think my interest in this topic has been exhausted.

[quote]Is it really peace and love?

I've been responding to your post as I read it. Then I got to this. Remember how I said that other thing was your only allowed ad hom? Well, you just blew it.

This statement is a prototypical ad hominem. It has sum zero to do with my arguments. It is a shot at me as a person.

Nothing makes me angrier than someone throwing my signature back in my face. Because 1 - don't fucking do that and 2 - it's an ad hom attack.

This conversation is officially over.
I didn't talk at you, but at your concepts of truth, centralization, decision, etc. These concepts belong to us all, nobody is allowed to have their own definitions. When a Christian apologist does that in a debate, we laugh him off. Christians have a saying, hate the sin, love the sinner. I adopted it, hate the error, love the errant one. Doesn't sound as cool, but it sums me up. I've been very often wrong and unaware in my life and realizing that was not pleasant, I reckoned if I do the correcting myself, would get easier. The pursuit of truth made me quite ruthless to myself and to everyone else, I suppose. Yet maybe it's a wrong approach. We should all kill our own pets if they need putting to sleep. We should probably do so with our own pet theories. Only we don't want to, this is why there's the internet, there are a plenty of self-invited vets with a mortal injection.

Hey, never once I thought anything bad about you. I just have such a sense of humor, my jokes can be so distasteful, so that sometimes I shock myself and then I censor myself. And you know what? I like conflict, I like disagreement, on objective grounds and I like to spice it up with humor. My idea of hell is a place where everyone agrees with me, so there's nothing to discuss. And discussion without one guy losing and one guy winning is no challenge. In a sense, the guy who lost is better off, because he gets wiser.
But I suppose you took my disagreement with definitions personally, me playing a smartass role all along in this discussion, and the Sith and absolutes joke had just set this off.
We all have our weak spots, mine is an intellectual pride. If someone unjustly underestimates my integrity, consistency and intelligent judgement, it's like telling an Irishman he can't hold his liquor. A big, big mistake. But show me where I made an error and I'll lick your hand.

People sometimes push our buttons unwittingly. So your button that we all should tiptoe around is...?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Could someone condense this into words that non-geniuses (at leats for this) can understand please.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions
(26-01-2013 11:06 AM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  Could someone condense this into words that non-geniuses (at leats for this) can understand please.
We shouldn't make up our own opinions and beliefs. We should admit we don't know, make a survey, use the scientific method and arrive at results objectively.
We should do so everywhere, specially when dealing with world problems like poverty, hunger, unemployment, illiteracy, criminality, low quality of life and so on.
We should not follow any ideologies, that is, plans that allow only to act in one way without any means to step back and try something different if the plan A doesn't work.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Being Afraid of People? BrokenQuill92 21 1,024 24-09-2013 07:22 AM
Last Post: MillyJak
  My opinion about people who change of religion viocjit 9 608 01-07-2013 02:21 AM
Last Post: Thanh
  Homeless people. earmuffs 57 2,413 11-05-2013 08:23 PM
Last Post: bbeljefe
  How can people be so different? Zat 45 1,488 08-02-2013 08:42 AM
Last Post: Luminon
  The treatment of Gay people HailMeNow 34 1,561 23-01-2013 01:37 PM
Last Post: GodlessnFree
  Are people who cannot see that morality is subjective idiots? namiloveyou 62 3,493 12-01-2013 12:19 PM
Last Post: Luminon
Star Do you judge people more by what they admire, or by what they despise? PoolBoyG 48 2,199 20-11-2012 01:03 PM
Last Post: Stark Raving
Forum Jump: