Nazi alert and other people's reactions
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
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
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
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: Nazi alert and other people's reactions - Luminon - 26-01-2013 07:20 AM
Forum Jump: