Where do we go from here?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(25-03-2013 05:30 PM)Zat Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 05:01 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  There is a reason why people don't want to overthrow it, worldwide, for something different. It works. It just doesn't work well.

Let's examine how capitalism (the 'winning' ideology) works world-wide:

1. Wars, all over the planet
2. Danger of nuclear, chemical, biological, space-based weapons (deployment or accident)
3. Environmental degradation
4. Massive levels of species extinction
5. Depletion and pollution of natural resources
6. Massive and unspeakable cruelty to animals on farms, the food industry and in laboratories
7. Mass starvation on the planet
8. Epidemics and Pandemics at ever increasing rate
9. Climate change runaway threat and ongoing negative effects
10. Massive poverty, ostentatious gluttony, increasing desperation and crime
11. Fundamentalist Religion’s resurgence
12. Millions of young brainwashed and turned into neurotic wrecks
13. Whole generations dumbed down
14. Corporate stranglehold on politics and communication
15. Meaningless, farcical ‘democracy’
16. Torture practiced openly all over the world

I know what the reality is as of today.

It doesn't mean that we can' think AHEAD!

You're reasoning backwards, as if human beings weren't involved, just a mind-control system. Did you just skip reading my post?

I didn't say any thing about not thinking ahead, and it's not evident, by reading your posts, that you actually are taking into account and/or are understanding, the reality of today. You are just simply showing an ability to think ahead, as if it would be possible for you to fall asleep and wake up with a utopian system in place automatically, with no problems; and with a dubious attitude to any other approach than a complete all in one solution, which you also seem to imply is unlikely.

Capitalism doesn't exist as an actual thing. It's just a system, in which, by which, people operate in terms of economics. I never agreed, or made a claim, that it was the best or most efficient way of doing things; nor did I make the claim that we should just stick with it; but if you think it as any thing more than what I described, in this post/thread, you are delusional.

It might encourage bad behavior to be worse in certain individuals, but it's not a root, inherent cause of problems. You also have to take a realistic approach to fixing those problems, keeping in mind that not every person thinks the same way as you about problems. That is all I was trying to point out.

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
26-03-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
OK, I'll just wait to see if anyone else has anything interesting to say.

Till then...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Fourthly, how is it killing off innovation?? Look at the past 100 years, there has been more technological advancement then... I dunno, all the rest of man kinds history put together.
Money ENCOURAGES innovation.
Why should I develop an ipod that holds twice the number of songs if I can't profit off of it? Why should I develop a kitchen appliance that cuts cooking time in half if there's no profit for me?

You are equally as full of shit, as you claim Zat is, with your views of capitalism, innovation and money. Probably even more full of shit.

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
26-03-2013, 02:30 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 02:45 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
(25-03-2013 07:36 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  I'll admit that I don't quite know where we can continue going from this point. What I'll say is this, In my opinion. If you want to convince people that such an economy and philosophy is possible. Don't run to Bill Gates checkbook. Run to the psychologist and engineers. I would love to see studies, current studies or at old least studies that are both backed by peer review that show how and why humans are motivated. Especially in areas of jobs that are monotonous and/or dangerous. I would love for engineers to show different was that infrastructure could be built that would limit or eliminate the hazards of many of these jobs. Not say it but actually show it.

Frankly, outside of that it is hard to imagine how else I could be convinced outside of the evidence pointing in your favor from the above sources. Honestly, show me that or we've got nothing.
What would you want to see? There's technology all around! None of it is exclusive and much of it will be the very same or similar things you'd meet in a RBE city. There won't be jetpacks and teleports overnight. If you want to see how cars would be made, have a look. We start a machine, switch off the lights and come back in a couple of weeks. As I said, RBE is not about technology or science, it is about applying this science to solve problems.

If you want to see the sources and science that is the basis of RBE, look here . You will find books from all areas, sociology, psychology, biology, linguistics, technologies, economy, finances, law, even some big names you might recognize (B.F. Skinner, Bucky Fuller, Michael Shermer). Many of these books I can get for you, the rest you can find at some libraries. Shortly said,
[Image: 2611221054_36ed131afb_z.jpg?zz=1]
Just recently some guy claimed to me that human needs are infinite and insatiable, so we need scarcity and economy of money to distribute resources. I asked him where he got that idea. He said Friedrich Nietzsche an one more modern philosopher/economist. *facepalm* These people are corrupted by postmodernism and relativism, doubting logic. Doubt is good, but if they doubt logic, they doubt the doubt itself and such a person should shut up really quickly. These are people who read writings from depressed, illogical people and make conclusions about the legitimate area of science that is the social world.
I told that guy briefly some basics about Abraham Maslow and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for starters.

As for Bill Gates' checkbook,this is really in order today. The first step must be made in terms of today's economy, money and so on. There is a need to make a major film that will explain and inspire masses of people at once, which is something no amount of lecturing among experts can accomplish. As for experts, TVP now registersabout 5 300 experts in various fields of science, engineering or otherwise that are willing to come into the new city, help it build, show it running. They'd need about 7 000 of them in total. But for that we need a broad publicity. Publicity is the key to everything, that's why a help from Bill Gates would solve this problem at this point. Hire Steven Spielberg, maybe Tongue

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Second, those 'money related activities' contribute to the gaining of more money, thus they are useful and worth while.
Non-sequitur. Look at the financial industry, turns out 70-times more profit annually than GDPs of all states combined (source: Ignacio Ramonet, editor of Le Monde, IIRC). What does it contribute? And please, if you're going to explain basic economy here, you're insulting the intellect of almost everyone present.

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Fourthly, how is it killing off innovation?? Look at the past 100 years, there has been more technological advancement then... I dunno, all the rest of man kinds history put together.
Money ENCOURAGES innovation.
Why should I develop an ipod that holds twice the number of songs if I can't profit off of it? Why should I develop a kitchen appliance that cuts cooking time in half if there's no profit for me?
You call that encouraging innovation? That's more like shooting down your argument before it even started. There may be perfectly fine reasons why you should develop these appliances - for example, cooking time is really wasteful in terms of heat loss, but money won't let you do that.

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Again, go back and read my last post. When you have an idea for a REALISTIC working system that doesn't use a monitory system and takes into account HUMAN BEHAVIOR then get back to me.
But right now you are fucking delusional.
All right, so what do you know about human behavior? What books have you studied? What are your sources, can you point me towards any, please? Do you hold any degrees in social sciences? What was your thesis about? Can you name me three social scientists without Google and Wikipedia?

I just want to make sure you know your stuff. I've got to watch out. There are these strange folks prowling around, saying weird things like that facts and logic are not what they used to be and nothing is possible or impossible anymore. They're called post-modernists. Some want to be cool, so they call themselves nihilists. I have even met a sociopath on another forum. A very decent and law-abiding man, only he was the one least competent to speak about human nature ever, yet used it as his answer to everything, projecting a lot his own issues. Human nature? You know what Hitchens said, answers that explain everything, explain nothing.

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Nobody is stopping you from buying a small patch of land in the middle of nowhere and living your days out as a hermit 100% free from capitalist influences.
But you don't do you? Nope. The fact that you are using technology to use the internet to post this is proof right there.
Who came up with the internet and other technologies? The military (government funding) for the universities, not private sector. We don't need capitalism to be creative, we need to keep our nerds warm, fed, educated, supplied and online, as a national treasure! Big Grin What we have today in electronics was mostly invented by Nikola Tesla before he died in poverty because capitalist sponsors turned him down when he threatened to modernize this electricity business a bit too much. All the wireless devices and many others were just people stealing Nikola Tesla's patents, with his full approval. If he was a capitalist dick, he'd be really rich, Alexander Graham Bell would be in jail and we'd have just a fraction of the technology we have today. Nerds. We need our nerds!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
double post, sorry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(26-03-2013 02:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 07:36 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  I'll admit that I don't quite know where we can continue going from this point. What I'll say is this, In my opinion. If you want to convince people that such an economy and philosophy is possible. Don't run to Bill Gates checkbook. Run to the psychologist and engineers. I would love to see studies, current studies or at old least studies that are both backed by peer review that show how and why humans are motivated. Especially in areas of jobs that are monotonous and/or dangerous. I would love for engineers to show different was that infrastructure could be built that would limit or eliminate the hazards of many of these jobs. Not say it but actually show it.

Frankly, outside of that it is hard to imagine how else I could be convinced outside of the evidence pointing in your favor from the above sources. Honestly, show me that or we've got nothing.
What would you want to see? There's technology all around! None of it is exclusive and much of it will be the very same or similar things you'd meet in a RBE city. There won't be jetpacks and teleports overnight. If you want to see how cars would be made, have a look. We start a machine, switch off the lights and come back in a couple of weeks. As I said, RBE is not about technology or science, it is about applying this science to solve problems.

If you want to see the sources and science that is the basis of RBE, look here . You will find books from all areas, sociology, psychology, biology, linguistics, technologies, economy, finances, law, even some big names you might recognize (B.F. Skinner, Bucky Fuller, Michael Shermer). Many of these books I can get for you, the rest you can find at some libraries. Shortly said,
[Image: 2611221054_36ed131afb_z.jpg?zz=1]
Just recently some guy claimed to me that human needs are infinite and insatiable, so we need scarcity and economy of money to distribute resources. I asked him where he got that idea. He said Friedrich Nietzsche an one more modern philosopher/economist. *facepalm* These people are corrupted by postmodernism and relativism, doubting logic. Doubt is good, but if they doubt logic, they doubt the doubt itself and such a person should shut up really quickly. These are people who read writings from depressed, illogical people and make conclusions about the legitimate area of science that is the social world.
I told that guy briefly some basics about Abraham Maslow and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for starters.

As for Bill Gates' checkbook,this is really in order today. The first step must be made in terms of today's economy, money and so on. There is a need to make a major film that will explain and inspire masses of people at once, which is something no amount of lecturing among experts can accomplish. As for experts, TVP now registersabout 5 300 experts in various fields of science, engineering or otherwise that are willing to come into the new city, help it build, show it running. They'd need about 7 000 of them in total. But for that we need a broad publicity. Publicity is the key to everything, that's why a help from Bill Gates would solve this problem at this point. Hire Steven Spielberg, maybe Tongue

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Second, those 'money related activities' contribute to the gaining of more money, thus they are useful and worth while.
Non-sequitur. Look at the financial industry, turns out 70-times more profit annually than GDPs of all states combined (source: Ignacio Ramonet, editor of Le Monde, IIRC). What does it contribute? And please, if you're going to explain basic economy here, you're insulting the intellect of almost everyone present.

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Fourthly, how is it killing off innovation?? Look at the past 100 years, there has been more technological advancement then... I dunno, all the rest of man kinds history put together.
Money ENCOURAGES innovation.
Why should I develop an ipod that holds twice the number of songs if I can't profit off of it? Why should I develop a kitchen appliance that cuts cooking time in half if there's no profit for me?
You call that encouraging innovation? That's more like shooting down your argument before it even started. There may be perfectly fine reasons why you should develop these appliances - for example, cooking time is really wasteful in terms of heat loss, but money won't let you do that.

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Again, go back and read my last post. When you have an idea for a REALISTIC working system that doesn't use a monitory system and takes into account HUMAN BEHAVIOR then get back to me.
But right now you are fucking delusional.
All right, so what do you know about human behavior? What books have you studied? What are your sources, can you point me towards any, please? Do you hold any degrees in social sciences? What was your thesis about? Can you name me three social scientists without Google and Wikipedia?

I just want to make sure you know your stuff. I've got to watch out. There are these strange folks prowling around, saying weird things like that facts and logic are not what they used to be and nothing is possible or impossible anymore. They're called post-modernists. Some want to be cool, so they call themselves nihilists. I have even met a sociopath on another forum. A very decent and law-abiding man, only he was the one least competent to speak about human nature ever, yet used it as his answer to everything, projecting a lot his own issues. Human nature? You know what Hitchens said, answers that explain everything, explain nothing.

(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Nobody is stopping you from buying a small patch of land in the middle of nowhere and living your days out as a hermit 100% free from capitalist influences.
But you don't do you? Nope. The fact that you are using technology to use the internet to post this is proof right there.
Who came up with the internet and other technologies? The military (government funding) for the universities, not private sector. We don't need capitalism to be creative, we need to keep our nerds warm, fed, educated, supplied and online, as a national treasure! Big Grin What we have today in electronics was mostly invented by Nikola Tesla before he died in poverty because capitalist sponsors turned him down when he threatened to modernize this electricity business a bit too much. All the wireless devices and many others were just people stealing Nikola Tesla's patents, with his full approval. If he was a capitalist dick, he'd be really rich, Alexander Graham Bell would be in jail and we'd have just a fraction of the technology we have today. Nerds. We need our nerds!
I got a couple of names there that I'll see if I can look into them when I've got the time.

Some advice though, You might want to get whoever manages that page on the sciences to organize it a bit better. By field of expertise might be nice. Thumbsup

Just an outsider looking inn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(26-03-2013 09:56 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 07:27 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Fourthly, how is it killing off innovation?? Look at the past 100 years, there has been more technological advancement then... I dunno, all the rest of man kinds history put together.
Money ENCOURAGES innovation.
Why should I develop an ipod that holds twice the number of songs if I can't profit off of it? Why should I develop a kitchen appliance that cuts cooking time in half if there's no profit for me?

You are equally as full of shit, as you claim Zat is, with your views of capitalism, innovation and money. Probably even more full of shit.
Care to elaborate?

Quote:Non-sequitur. Look at the financial industry, turns out 70-times more
profit annually than GDPs of all states combined (source: Ignacio
Ramonet, editor of Le Monde, IIRC). What does it contribute? And please,
if you're going to explain basic economy here, you're insulting the
intellect of almost everyone present.

It contributes a lot. Banks/those finance lending places/even loan sharks, for example offer loans which allow people to do... pretty much whatever. ie: Buy a house, start a business, buy a car etc.. etc..
But also things like shares allow companies to expand and grow with the newly gained capital, same with bonds.

ie: A company is formed, it requires X amount of money for growth and so it issues shares to gain that money and gain that growth. It then hires more staff, putting my people into the work force which is obviously good etc...

Quote:You call that encouraging innovation?

Yes I do.
Part of business competition is having a better product then your competitors.
The tech industry is a perfect example of this. Intel brings out a faster better processor, so AMD develops and brings out one better then Intels, so Intel brings out a better one etc.. etc..
It's the same with efficiency. Efficiency is what it's all about. If you have two farms producing the same product, even the same amount of the same product, then the farm that can do it more efficiently is the one that is going to be more profitable. So innovation is encouraged.

Innovation may be encouraged somewhat without money, BUT money is a huge incentive to make things more efficient sooner.


Quote:I just want to make sure you know your stuff. I've got to watch out.
There are these strange folks prowling around, saying weird things like
that facts and logic are not what they used to be and nothing is
possible or impossible anymore. They're called post-modernists. Some
want to be cool, so they call themselves nihilists. I have even met a
sociopath on another forum. A very decent and law-abiding man, only he
was the one least competent to speak about human nature ever, yet used
it as his answer to everything, projecting a lot his own issues. Human
nature? You know what Hitchens said, answers that explain everything,
explain nothing.

This was not in regards to what I know about human nature, this is in regards to what Zat claims human nature is about, which any 5year old can see is a load of shit.

ie: he wants to get rid of police/lawyers/courts, he assumes that without money people would be very well mannered and behaved citizens when this is not true and doesn't require a PHD in the social science flavor of the month to see.
Money is a factor in a lot of crimes sure, but there are truly just fucked up people out there that kill/rape/whatever because they enjoy doing so. Does Zat suggest we simply allow them to run rampart?

Quote:What we have today in electronics was mostly invented by Nikola Tesla
before he died in poverty because capitalist sponsors turned him down
when he threatened to modernize this electricity business a bit too
much. All the wireless devices and many others were just people stealing
Nikola Tesla's patents, with his full approval. If he was a capitalist
dick, he'd be really rich, Alexander Graham Bell would be in jail and
we'd have just a fraction of the technology we have today. Nerds. We
need our nerds!

So people 'stole' Telsa's ideas and used them in a capitalist way (aka to profit from them). Hmmm, sounds like money drove innovation there son.
Telsa may have invented them, but some smuck made it profitable which is why we have it today and not just on some blueprint in a cupboard being chewed on by rats somewhere.

Also, you say Telsa tried to make profit from his inventions? Are you saying that this is why he invented, for the hopefulness that one day he'd become rich off of one of his inventions? He was turned down by people which suggests that did want to make money off of it. Can I prove it? no of course not. But can you prove the contrary?
All irrelevant anyway because the reason we have those things today, is like you said, some smuck 'stole' his idea and made it profitable.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 06:56 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(26-03-2013 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 09:56 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  You are equally as full of shit, as you claim Zat is, with your views of capitalism, innovation and money. Probably even more full of shit.

Care to elaborate?


"Fourthly, how is it killing off innovation?? Look at the past 100 years, there has been more technological advancement then... I dunno, all the rest of man kinds history put together. Money ENCOURAGES innovation. Why should I develop an ipod that holds twice the number of songs if I can't profit off of it? "

That statement didn't speak for itself.

What beats the innovation of Civil War technology, because who doesn't need to find a innovative way to kill the people with the radical idea (owning other human beings is immoral), that could lead to the complete elimination of the entire foundation of capital wealth in your "economy"?

Or how about electrocuting live animals and human beings, in front of audiences, in order to suppress the ability of a superior technology to become available to people?

(1800s too far back, past 100, for innovation)

Or maybe you mean modern innovation, that suppresses advancements in healthcare, education, food or energy? Those things improving people's lives isn't what is important, making huge profits is what is needed.

My point is you have a dogmatic, ideological, seemingly disconnected, maybe nonsensical view of capitalism/money, especially as it relates to innovation, and maybe even reality/society in general.

The people responsible for true innovation don't care even about fame, let alone fortune, money is completely nonsensical and useless to most of them, or at least they view it for what it truly is (not an actual thing, a made up concept, used by idiots to make their lives easier living with their peers).

Even the big shot assholes will tell you money means nothing, only the resources that money is "supposed" to represent value of are important; but if your point was that enslaving people or indirectly forcing them into labor or things like extortion, manipulation, bribery, etc., are all things that make the world a hell of a lot easier to spin than convincing people, using reason, that they should contribute to society for their own development, needs and wants...point taken, thanks.

My main point was: it's would be as stupid, probably even more so, for you to give money/capitalism any sort of credit for innovation, as it would be for Zat to blame those same things on a list of immoral actions. Zat actually had a pretty good point behind what he was saying, as there really isn't any arguing that those (immoral) actions aren't made worse by capitalism/money.

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
27-03-2013, 05:30 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(26-03-2013 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It contributes a lot. Banks/those finance lending places/even loan sharks, for example offer loans which allow people to do... pretty much whatever. ie: Buy a house, start a business, buy a car etc.. etc..
But also things like shares allow companies to expand and grow with the newly gained capital, same with bonds.
ie: A company is formed, it requires X amount of money for growth and so it issues shares to gain that money and gain that growth. It then hires more staff, putting my people into the work force which is obviously good etc...
You're again explaining basic economy to me. Please stop that. If there is to be contribution, there must be some relationship between real economy and the circulating amount of money and their derivates. For an overwhelming part, there is very little correlation. This lack of correlation is called a bubble and you know how that ends. Money became the goal, and the real resources the means. This business speculation with basic means of living is a perversion of values and a systemic threat to global economic stability. The whole system is corrupted, all economists worth their right wing chairs today seriously contemplate the golden standard today. Which I think is a little anachronistic and I'd go all the way to money-less RBE, but I understand why they see the necessity.

(26-03-2013 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yes I do.
Part of business competition is having a better product then your competitors.
The tech industry is a perfect example of this. Intel brings out a faster better processor, so AMD develops and brings out one better then Intels, so Intel brings out a better one etc.. etc..
It's the same with efficiency. Efficiency is what it's all about. If you have two farms producing the same product, even the same amount of the same product, then the farm that can do it more efficiently is the one that is going to be more profitable. So innovation is encouraged.

Innovation may be encouraged somewhat without money, BUT money is a huge incentive to make things more efficient sooner.
The same thing that encourages competition and better products makes people:
- misuse their monopoly when they can by making worse and expensive products,
- decrease efficiency and quality, increase price and make that up with brainwashing (advertising) people into buying the product anyway.
- Using the same idea over and over again in different package, countless high-end and low-end varieties, blocking the market for new, truly innovative technologies and wasting resources.
It is better than nothing or socialism, but hell a lot worse than RBE.

(26-03-2013 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This was not in regards to what I know about human nature, this is in regards to what Zat claims human nature is about, which any 5year old can see is a load of shit.

ie: he wants to get rid of police/lawyers/courts, he assumes that without money people would be very well mannered and behaved citizens when this is not true and doesn't require a PHD in the social science flavor of the month to see.
Money is a factor in a lot of crimes sure, but there are truly just fucked up people out there that kill/rape/whatever because they enjoy doing so. Does Zat suggest we simply allow them to run rampart?
Changing human nature by direct intervention is nearly impossible. Human nature is a self-preserving mechanism with internal capacity (imprecisely called free will). Yet human nature changes all the time. Why? Because it reacts to the environment! We can and do change human nature easily, by changing the environment. Every environment provokes its own crimes in people. Criminality is an indivisible part of a given environment. For example, economic scarcity is a very powerful and nearly omnipresent environmental stimulus for crime, so much, that it is considered a part of human nature. Which is nonsense, yet people believe it for no reason. Healthy, neurotypical people are not born fucked up, evolution took care of that. So what fucks them up, what makes them dysfunctional? The environment, of course. The meat-grinder of inhumane society pits them against each other. Simply too much people at too small space with too few resources and no easy way to get to more. The same works for rats, the difference between insane killing rats and happy rats is the space they have available. It is the capacity of the environment.

I think Zat didn't spell it out for you, that RBE is about designing the environment in such a way that it is built in the best interest of its citizens and most crimes are technically impossible to commit. This is an environment and human nature reacts to environment. People are capable of reacting even to such minutiae like changing prices in supermarket.

(26-03-2013 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So people 'stole' Telsa's ideas and used them in a capitalist way (aka to profit from them). Hmmm, sounds like money drove innovation there son.
Telsa may have invented them, but some smuck made it profitable which is why we have it today and not just on some blueprint in a cupboard being chewed on by rats somewhere.

Also, you say Telsa tried to make profit from his inventions? Are you saying that this is why he invented, for the hopefulness that one day he'd become rich off of one of his inventions? He was turned down by people which suggests that did want to make money off of it. Can I prove it? no of course not. But can you prove the contrary?
All irrelevant anyway because the reason we have those things today, is like you said, some smuck 'stole' his idea and made it profitable.
Tesla kept working against a heavy opposition from his fellow inventors (like Edison) and despite of poverty and lacking funds. He was not driven by profit or social success, he was a nerd, in today's terms. He willingly let other people copy his inventions, he wanted a better future for humanity. I wouldn't say money play any motivation in such people. They're more of a nuisance and hindrance to the progress.
The set of skills to make profit and good marketing is entirely different and is not usually found in one person. Edison was more like it, he did much R&D, but in essence he was a CEO.

Other people used his inventions, but only the ones they could understand with their limited knowledge. These they introduced to the market and the market blocked further innovation. Market is not motivated by innovation, it will sell people almost the same thing hundred times over, if it pays. As long as the market can get away in it, it introduces only diluted versions of the technology. The technology is designed to wear out and break quickly, so there is a space for the next generation, but none of these generations is a revolutionary or pure, re-designed technology. They're all a slightly better version of the same, which costs the world dearly in energy, resources and pollution.
Again, it's better than nothing or socialism, but it is useless in times like WW2, this is why war is so good for technology, the funding is direct and it is also applied directly without market in the best, non-diluted quality, or the enemy wins and kills our people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: