Where do we go from here?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 09:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Thanks for the positive rep! I don't get many of them, I'd have to fit in and participate more among the ex-religious atheists, but I don't have enough problems with religion, never had. So it's nice to see people like it and react. I was worried I was getting a bit too vague back there.

You bring a different perspective, refreshing.

(24-03-2013 09:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 06:48 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The one thing that this doesn't satisfy is the individual's needs for non-material things like power, control, ago-satisfaction etc. I may be perfectly content with food on my table, a roof over my head and persuing my interests. But Napoleon over there is motivated by telling people what to do and likes having minions. These alphas will always be the fly in the soup, the monkey wrench in the works, IMO, in ANY social system. How can this ever be controlled?
Let's just say these qualities are a result of environmental conditioning. Someone might experience something in childhood, a basic insecurity that gets forgotten and hidden deeply in the subconscious, but it determines the outer behavior.
I'm going to disagree with you here. I have the same scenario in my family. One brother is the dominant personality. The question of nurture or nature has been debated at length and while both contribute to how a person behaves I think it is NATURE that drives it, nurture only modifies to a degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

Yet on the other side we have this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/nature...sited.html

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 05:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-03-2013 10:54 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  (FYI, im typing this on notepad so if it's posted bad then my apologies. It's the only way to save so that a crash doesn't
ruin my post) Here's the problem that I take with that. For the most part, to my knowledge, there are two things that one needs at the fundamental level, product production and innovation. In order to produce you need resources and in order to get resources
you need labor. Whether that labor comes from man or machine is the point. One of the propositions of the RBE is the Elimination of money since that undermines the ability to efficiently use and distribute resources accordingly. Yet if you eliminate money than the effect is that you undermine the human laborers ability to operate those labor jobs. In other words, You can't expect a human to do intensive labor for some good cause on a large scale. Especially if they have no desire to do
such jobs. So my question is. How, beyond replacing those labor jobs with machines, do you expect people to work for no money.
There is a great difference between human labor and machine labor. Human labor is obsolete, it's slow, weak, inefficient, full of errors. And it must be motivated somehow. A machine needs no motivation, no money, it just needs energy and it can work all round the clock.
What you describe seems to me, put into precise words, as without money we can't extort people economically to do a work that they never liked in the first place, a work that machine could do better anyway.

So to answer your question, people are like machines that they too run on some kind of "energy". So far we know of three kinds of "energy" - three kinds of motivation that get a person to do things, including work. For a long, long time of human history, the dominant motivation to make anyone do anything was fear. People were afraid of hunger, pain, casting out, death, and so on, so they worked. Often as slaves or feudal laborers. The problem with this kind of motivation, "powering the society" in such a way is twofold:
- Firstly, you have to have the whole society structured in such a way, that makes dealing pain and death easy and keeps people relatively poor and powerless, so they're easily controlled by violence and extortion. You have to have a central power with military forces to dish out punishment and of course all powers around do the same and so they routinely think of just killing you and taking your stuff. Plus revolutions, violent revolutions.
- Secondly, the motivation of fear can make people do only certain range of tasks, mostly unskilled labor. Even the strongest black slave can't equal a steam engine. Slaves can't learn at schools and universities how to work better and do complex tasks. And fear-based society doesn't allow for too much literacy or technology, intellectuals have a way of questioning and undermining authority. So hands off the books, or heads off.


This is why humanity invented another way to power the society, the motivation of profit. People are afraid of poverty, unemployment, kids taken away, losing an apartment, and so on, so they work. Often as blue collars or white collars. The problem with this kind of motivation, "powering the society" in such a way is twofold:
- Firstly, you have to have the whole society structured in such a way, that makes dealing debt and profit easy and keeps people relatively greedy and needy, so they're easily controlled by lack of living standard or the need to increase it. You have to have a central power with management forces to dish out wages, salary or bonuses and of course all powers around do the same and so they routinely think of just being cheaper than you and taking over your market. Plus economic crises, violent economic crises.
- Secondly, the motivation of profit can make people do only certain range of tasks, mostly uncreative labor. Even the most experienced salesman can't equal an online shop. Employees can't learn at schools and universities how to work in a creative way and have game-changing ideas, that don't generate profit. And profit-based society doesn't allow for too much creativity or innovation, geniuses have a way of questioning and undermining the market. So hands off the internet, or the job contract's off.

This is why humanity invented another way to power the society, the motivation of fun. People want to avoid boredom, depression, exhaustion, losing a meaning of life, and so on, so they get educated and search for a fun and meaningful things to do. Often as students or hobbyists. The problem with this kind of motivation, "powering the society" in such a way is twofold:
- Firstly, you have to have the whole society structured in such a way, that delegates all the boring and mechanical tasks to machines. You have to have a central computer with wires and sensors everywhere to register all the real carrying and production capacity of the environment, what levels of water and nutrients in the soil, the capacity of automatic factories and so on. And of course all central computers in cities around do the same and so they routinely share the information of capacity and people's electronic demand and together distribute products that everyone needs.
- Secondly, the motivation of fun can make people do only certain range of tasks, mostly a creative work or self-development. And what the hell is wrong with that? People can learn at schools and universities how to work in a creative way and have game-changing ideas, that get immediately implemented for the immediate, visible good of everyone. They don't need to go to work, to earn money, to buy things, they gain access to things directly. People don't need ownership, they need access. A thing we use is ours, a things we don't use would be a burden if nobody bought it. If we don't own it, we just give it back to the library/storage of things. Any kind of appliance or musical instrument should be available for free, that eliminates almost all crime. The rest of crime must be studied for aberrant behavior and to identify causes in the environment that caused it and remove the causes.

Shortly said, if you're concerned that the moment people get what they need directly, they'll leave their job and sit at home, that is a completely unrealistic assumption. Even in a car factory, a fairly shitty and extremely boring job, I have met women who liked their job, liked the stability and reliability and company that it gave them. And I have done lots and lots of work just for free, because it was fun or meaningful or it was for my family, or I got some kind of academic degree for it, a recognized accomplishment, stuff like that. And I'd continue to do that maybe forever, if my material needs were secured in a basic way.
If you are concerned about the transition from here to there, don't think people will get immediately sent home and factories closed! No, think of it as people keeping working until they rebuild the factory with such technologies that it shortens the working day or week dramatically and then these workers will be sent to school to learn about what they once loved and wanted to know or do as children, so now their dreams come true. This transition might, if done without psychological steps like interest-free currency and stuff, it might take 10 years. 10 years of systematically replacing old cities and production facilities with new ones. 10 years is not unrealistic, considering that it is most similar to the war effort. Think of what we wasted during 6 years of WW2 and 4 years of WW1, think of it as applied according to RBE, for the benefit of humanity. 10 years is not unrealistic.

(23-03-2013 10:54 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  I also only don't whole hardily agree that capitalism is completely inefficient or leads to inefficiency. I do think that to some degree you should expect more efficiency in a system that has some reason to push for more efficient products. Scientist are still active in many different areas of product production. Case in point is agriculture. While not perfect agricultural growth, Unlike the
organic crowd, has created a far greater degree of food than has ever been produced before. Is it perfect, no. Lots of food is wasted. This is however to me a example that you can make more efficient produce. This happened in a capitalistic system even if capitalism wasn't the sole cause.
There is a very, very loose correlation between the price tag and the actual material, environmental and energetic efficiency of the product. Capitalism doesn't push for greater efficiency, it pushes for a lower price tag. This may or may not decrease the actual costs on the environment. When faced with an economic problem, a capitalist has basically 3 solutions:
- try to use science in such a way that the production is better, more efficient and it is possible to use less resources, decreasing costs. However, a capitalist will not actually decrease the price, unless the competition threatens to do that first. He just increases the margin. In some areas people agree to keep the margin ridiculously high. In some areas it actually works and gives us better services and products, which makes the white middle class impression that capitalism works.
- try to use science in such a way that the production is actually worse, that the costs are dumped as negative externalities, the production pollutes more, uses more resources, damages more everything that does not have a price tag, so that the price tag on product can be lower. This is why traditional economists want everything privately owned, so that everything has a price tag so people are motivated to care for it. But to me it seems a perverse way of structuring the society around something that's not worth it and will not work.
- cut the worker wages, decreasing their living standard and setting them up for poverty in retirement. Or sack some workers, setting them up for poverty now and increasing the workload on those who must stay.

There is another way in which capitalism is irrational and inefficient. People want money. People can make money in any way they want. They make a business plan to create a variety of products, most of which are complete waste of resources (things as beauty parlors for pets, travel agency for plush animals (not kidding, Czech idea, Japanese customers!), or the Chinese plastic nonsenses) yet they bring in some money. Some of these products and services turn out to be good, useful and successful, so they stay. But meanwhile working millions dish out more idiotic and useless crap that wastes resources and helps nobody, for the sole reason that they need a job, to get money, to get access to the basic necessities of life.
People need to get access to these basic necessities directly, not to hold the Earth hostage of the price tags, money and ownership.
Quote: Shortly said, if you're concerned that the moment people get what they need directly, they'll leave their job and sit at home, that is a completely unrealistic assumption
.


Actually, I based my remark off of a speech I heard from RSA that while problems that involve complex thinking are worse off when money gets in the way. Problems that involve hard labor do better with rewards like money.


Quote: I have met women who liked their job, liked the stability and reliability and company that it gave them.

You should know that anecdotal evidence is the weakness form of evidence. Is there any studies done that you can use to back up your claim that people can be motivated on labor task when money is taken off the table. That would be more convincing.

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 06:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 07:10 AM by Zat.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
More relevant excerpts from Kazohinia:


"The thing is," I commenced, "that happiness means obtaining a certain energy for the soul, and like every energy, this, too, comes from a difference in levels, from the results which I have achieved and not others."

It was his opinion that happiness could not even exist, because if it once existed it would cease to be.

Each of your obsessions ceases to be at the moment of realization, and your imaginary aims, which in general you call cultural endeavours, differ in this very point from real targets. A hungry man suffers as long as he is hungry, but he is pleased when having eaten his fill, and it doesn't diminish his pleasure if others, too, eat their fill, as the stomach is satisfied not by the hunger of others, that is by the concept of a difference in level, but by the physical fact of repletion. Your soul, however, feeds only on the hunger of others. The admiral would be unhappy if everybody were to become an admiral, and the stamp-collector would commit his album to flames if a generous government in its efforts to further common happiness provided a 'Mauritius' for everybody. Just as love's becoming universal would mean its ceasing and turning into the kazo, in the same manner happiness would not exist any more if everybody was ableto achieve it. This is also why your philosophers rack their brain to discover a happy state. Well, is it possible to imagine a thing that exists only as long as it does not exist?"

I was about to interrupt but he stopped me with a gesture and continued:

"But let's speak of whether these cultural requirements can be satisfied materially at all. That is, your soul's endeavour is never to help, but to rob others as this provides the difference of level. But the stomach of your soul is a bottomless sack, the filling of which knows no boundaries. The cubic capacity of our actual stomach is defined. It cannot hold more than a certain quantity of food, and to overburden the stomach is just as painful as hunger. We feel equally uncomfortable at a temperature of less than 65 ºF and more than 75 ºF, but cultural requirements have no upper limit. Though your kings travel by coaches of gold and wear robes of state heavy with a hundred kinds of jewels (which, of course, is in itself unnecessary) they still don't permit the people to use their remaining energy for the benefit of their own physical well-being, but force them to build a pyramid for themselves, or wage war against other peoples to reduce these to destitution as well for the sake of the difference of level. The soul drives you only to trample upon each other and never to help each other, and completely aimlessly into the bargain, as the aim is unattainable."

"You once mentioned," he continued, "that money ensures the equitable distribution of goods. On the contrary: it is only an unjust distribution that needs to be ensured by distributing the purchasing power in advance. The real aims can easily be reached without controlling distribution by force; why, our bodily needs are so small - it is only the fantasy of the soul's happiness that pushes you into squabbles. The soul is the primary cause of the laws of continuous robbery and struggle."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 09:30 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
I should perhaps explain that and put it into context. Here, the "soul" means a person's emotionality, or as we Theosophists would say, "astral body". (we use different meaning for "soul", so it's a little confusing) Emotionality is the capacity to feel, to desire, to be subjectively attached.

Emotionality craves stimulation. It can hunger just like our stomach, but by stimulation its hunger rather grows instead of lessening. In lack of stimulation, people may even pick fights and rows with spouse - which results in arguments and even more emotional making peace. In some ways that is a "happy" household if you can stand the noise.

The problem is, emotionality can not make its own positive energy, it needs to get it out of someone, by competing, winning, insulting, taking a point, scoring against... Of course the other one will have to revenge himself and so the conflict escalates into the extreme, or long into oblivion.

Emotionality is not a human trait, it's our animal heritage. We only have by far the greatest capacity and variety of feeling, so great that relatively few people actually control it. The right way to deal with emotions is neither to stimulate them, nor to suppress them: Alice Bailey's commentary to the myth of Hercules points at the quest to slay the Lernean hydra. I suggest those interested in dealing with the problem of emotionality and human nature read it. I think the commentary is clear enough, just please note that "soul" is there meant as the superconsciousness or "higher self", the impersonal greater part of us that contemporary psychology still ignores, but which is a part of still more people's lives.
(nevermind the psychobabble on the bottom, these are technical terms that only in-depth students may use. No belief in anything is necessary, just get inspired by what you can)

I can personally testify the usefulness of that text. Even if I wasn't at this particular stage, these principles are universal, there are lesser corresponding cycles within greater cycles and so I have gone or perhaps am still going through something similar. I think Alice Bailey's writings might be greatly useful to those, who can ask the right questions and expose the problems of humanity, yet can't see any solutions and might be worried there are none.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 11:22 AM by Zat.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
Thank you, Luminon, for the interpretation.

Szathmary gives us a very good example for the 'soul' in the following passage:

"Finally I mentioned chess as a harmless pastime of the soul from which nobody could suffer any harm.

I drew a chessboard, and sketched chess pieces on small slips of paper and then I expounded the rules of the game, which, I may say, was an onerous task. I had never had such a thickheaded pupil. When I had explained for the fifth time, he repeated his question for the sixth time: "But what is the aim?"

"To remove the king of the enemy," I said and began to explain again.

Shrugging his shoulders he eventually agreed to a game. I made a move with a pawn and beckoned to him to move, at which he took my king, placed it beside the chessboard, and looked questioningly at me.

"And now what is the sense in that?" he asked inanely.

I put the figure back with considerable annoyance.

"It's not that simple!"

"You can see it is!"

"But you must observe the rules! If you play like that then of course there is no sense in it. If you play according to the rules, you will see that there is sense in it."

With great difficulty we played a game right through to the end. Of course, I beat him.

"And now what?" he asked.

"Now I am the winner."

"What does that mean?"

"I have taken the game."

He thought for a long time. Clearly he still did not under stand.

"And what does that actually mean?" He eventually came out with it.

"That I have won."

"You explain one word with another, which for you seems to be necessary because none of them has anything to do with reality. You have coined both of them without either of them having any content."

He was unable to understand - as he put it - why we were doing nothing so lengthily and painstakingly, to which there would have been no point even if I had removed his king at the very start, and he drew the conclusion that the whole of our life and public life probably consisted of making complications out of nothing, and that our actions were directed by imaginary idols. And if we took nothing as actuality, this could only produce poverty, discord, and the accumulation of kazi things, which all seemed to be the aftermath of the disease I had called soul and emotions which drew us away from creative work.

"But why do you do all this?" he asked.

"Because we have the capacity to feel."

"We have the same senses as you, and yet we don't do it."

"Because you sense heat, light and sound but not happiness."

"What, then, is it that you call happiness?"

"The satisfaction of the soul."

"That is when the soul has had its fill."

"Something like that."

He pondered.

"Did your soul have its fill when we played chess?"

"Yes, because I won the game. You see, you have no such pleasures."

"And how do you manage to arrange that both parties win the game?"

In spite of my low spirits a smile flitted across my face.

"How can you imagine that? It is a game for us to play against each other and not for each other. One of the parties must lose."

"And is the losing party happy too?"

"No. He is unhappy. But he, in turn, may be the winner on another occasion."

"Then why do you make one of the parties unhappy?"

To tell the truth his question somewhat surprised me and I had to gather my wits together to make him understand the situation.

"The thing is," I commenced, "that happiness means obtaining a certain energy for the soul, and like every energy, this, too, comes from a difference in levels, from the results which I have achieved and not others."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zat's post
25-03-2013, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 10:13 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 09:02 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  Actually, I based my remark off of a speech I heard from RSA that while problems that involve complex thinking are worse off when money gets in the way. Problems that involve hard labor do better with rewards like money.
Don't you realize this RSA speech confirms exactly what I say? You may read it again and look at the video again, so you see it. Or if you're just lazy and believe me (can't blame ya, I do it all the time!) then I just assure you the software company in the video did exactly what the society in TVP will do all the frickin' time. Autonomy, personal interest, creativity, sharing of results, fun.

I see no surprise at all that the problems involving complex thinking are worse off. What relationship did the test subjects have to these problems? What interest, what meaning did they see in them? None, absolutely none at all. These were just arbitrary hoops to jump through to get some money. This is exactly what I said, money can not motivate people to certain tasks.

And specially intellectual pursuits. To some, intellect is closer than one's body. To use it for menial labor for mere money feels like a form of prostitution and it is highly demotivating. The more it is motivating to use the intellect, let's say, to solve humanity's problems and make a lasting contribution to the common good. This is something so motivating, that many people would do it for free, provided that their basic living needs will be secured. No need for accumulating property here. What do you think I do here? I use my intellect and intuition, which is a highly qualified skill that would pay greatly if it was used let's say to invest on stock market. But I probably couldn't even if I wanted to and I really like you and other guys and girls here and we have great fun, specially when we disagree and solve our differences. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(25-03-2013 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 09:02 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  Actually, I based my remark off of a speech I heard from RSA that while problems that involve complex thinking are worse off when money gets in the way. Problems that involve hard labor do better with rewards like money.
Don't you realize this RSA speech confirms exactly what I say? You may read it again and look at the video again, so you see it. Or if you're just lazy and believe me (can't blame ya, I do it all the time!) then I just assure you the software company in the video did exactly what the society in TVP will do all the frickin' time. Autonomy, personal interest, creativity, sharing of results, fun.

I see no surprise at all that the problems involving complex thinking are worse off. What relationship did the test subjects have to these problems? What interest, what meaning did they see in them? None, absolutely none at all. These were just arbitrary hoops to jump through to get some money. This is exactly what I said, money can not motivate people to certain tasks.

And specially intellectual pursuits. To some, intellect is closer than one's body. To use it for menial labor for mere money feels like a form of prostitution and it is highly demotivating. The more it is motivating to use it, let's say, to solve humanity's problems and make a lasting contribution to the common good. This is something so motivating, that many people would do it for free, provided that their basic living needs will be secured. No need for accumulating property here. What do you think I do here? I use my intellect and intuition, which is a highly qualified skill that would pay greatly if it was used let's say to invest on stock market. But I abhor financial speculation and really like you and other guys and girls here and we have great fun, specially when we disagree and solve our differences. Smile
Quote: Don't you realize this RSA speech confirms exactly what I say?
How? The point you made is that jobs with redundancy and little intellectual thought can be accomplished with no money involved. From my recollection of the video. While jobs that involve intellectual thought do worse with money. Jobs that are laborious do better.

I should point out that while the video is interesting it is based upon a 1969 study. I don't know how well it's backed by the psychological community today.

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(25-03-2013 06:28 AM)Zat Wrote:  More relevant excerpts from Kazohinia:


"The thing is," I commenced, "that happiness means obtaining a certain energy for the soul, and like every energy, this, too, comes from a difference in levels, from the results which I have achieved and not others."

It was his opinion that happiness could not even exist, because if it once existed it would cease to be.

Each of your obsessions ceases to be at the moment of realization, and your imaginary aims, which in general you call cultural endeavours, differ in this very point from real targets. A hungry man suffers as long as he is hungry, but he is pleased when having eaten his fill, and it doesn't diminish his pleasure if others, too, eat their fill, as the stomach is satisfied not by the hunger of others, that is by the concept of a difference in level, but by the physical fact of repletion. Your soul, however, feeds only on the hunger of others. The admiral would be unhappy if everybody were to become an admiral, and the stamp-collector would commit his album to flames if a generous government in its efforts to further common happiness provided a 'Mauritius' for everybody. Just as love's becoming universal would mean its ceasing and turning into the kazo, in the same manner happiness would not exist any more if everybody was ableto achieve it. This is also why your philosophers rack their brain to discover a happy state. Well, is it possible to imagine a thing that exists only as long as it does not exist?"

I was about to interrupt but he stopped me with a gesture and continued:

"But let's speak of whether these cultural requirements can be satisfied materially at all. That is, your soul's endeavour is never to help, but to rob others as this provides the difference of level. But the stomach of your soul is a bottomless sack, the filling of which knows no boundaries. The cubic capacity of our actual stomach is defined. It cannot hold more than a certain quantity of food, and to overburden the stomach is just as painful as hunger. We feel equally uncomfortable at a temperature of less than 65 ºF and more than 75 ºF, but cultural requirements have no upper limit. Though your kings travel by coaches of gold and wear robes of state heavy with a hundred kinds of jewels (which, of course, is in itself unnecessary) they still don't permit the people to use their remaining energy for the benefit of their own physical well-being, but force them to build a pyramid for themselves, or wage war against other peoples to reduce these to destitution as well for the sake of the difference of level. The soul drives you only to trample upon each other and never to help each other, and completely aimlessly into the bargain, as the aim is unattainable."

"You once mentioned," he continued, "that money ensures the equitable distribution of goods. On the contrary: it is only an unjust distribution that needs to be ensured by distributing the purchasing power in advance. The real aims can easily be reached without controlling distribution by force; why, our bodily needs are so small - it is only the fantasy of the soul's happiness that pushes you into squabbles. The soul is the primary cause of the laws of continuous robbery and struggle."

For some reason that reminded me of that Socrates vs. the pig.

"No intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs… A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and is certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence…It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they know only their side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(25-03-2013 10:08 AM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  How? The point you made is that jobs with redundancy and little intellectual thought can be accomplished with no money involved. From my recollection of the video. While jobs that involve intellectual thought do worse with money. Jobs that are laborious do better.

I should point out that while the video is interesting it is based upon a 1969 study. I don't know how well it's backed by the psychological community today.
Yes, all jobs can be accomplished without money if,
- machines are designed to do them, or if
- people doing them have a good relationship to the work, a motivation of purpose, autonomy, fun, mastery... if the basic necessities of life are provided.

The menial jobs, whether intellectual or manual can and should be replaced by machines, that's the point. If money nor fear can't motivate you to do that, and there will be no money in the future, then obviously we need a machine with right software to do that job. At some point an intellectual work has to be your hobby and your life, or you won't master it, money can't motivate you to mastery nor creativity, that's the point of the video. For everything else, there must be machines.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 10:47 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 12:05 PM by Zat.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
Actually, money does not exist in reality.

It is a myth, a psychological trickery designed to induce people to act, vote, strive against their own self interest.

It is always money that causes people to vote for and elect the worst psychopaths, criminals, fools and incompetents in their midst.

That is how wars, pollution, shoddy workmanship, fraud, exploitation, parasitism are possible.

Without money involved, people would want to protect their environment, produce good quality goods, educate their children properly, look after the sick and the old, promote responsible science and technology.

When money is involved, all bets are off -- people turn into raving maniacs, selfish bastards, neurotic wrecks, merciless bullies.

Remove money from the equation and we may have a chance of avoiding extinction.

If not -- not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: