The zeitgeist movement

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Casemon:
@thaluikhain
You make a lot of claims that something is impossible. Evidence?

Such ideas of Utopian societies have existed for millenia. If you have a time machine and speak ancient Greek, you could find out what Plato thinks about your idea. IMHO, he'd probably agree with at least some of it.

But despite all the effort put into trying to create such a perfect society, it hasn't come to pass as yet.

Now, like I said, give a few hundred years and maybe things will be different. I can imagine progress being made in my lifetime, but I don't expect the problems to be solved.

PercyBoleyn:

thaluikhain:
In the meantime, the societies we have now, with all the flaws you quite rightfully object to, are about the closest we can get.

Now that's just complete bull. This corrupted, bloated mess of bullshit is not the best humanity can offer, not by a longshot.

It is the best humanity can offer for the time being based on what humanity is now, and has been for time out of mind. Progress is being made, things may be different in the future, but for now there's only so much we can hope for.

thaluikhain:

It is the best humanity can offer for the time being based on what humanity is now, and has been for time out of mind. Progress is being made, things may be different in the future, but for now there's only so much we can hope for.

Now see, I just don't agree with that. There are countries that have done a much better job at solving social issues and such. To say that we are at the peak of our social evolution is to ignore reality. We CAN do a much better job and other people already have done so. We just need to do the same. Now I'm not referring specifically to the US, I don't even live there, but it is a very good example of a country that can improve itself by quite a bit.

Casemon:
@thaluikhain
You make a lot of claims that something is impossible. Evidence?

Oi, I just gave you a whole bunch of reasons your plan isn't perfect. Mind giving evidence those aren't a problem? Let me sum them up for you if that was too much text:

-Geothermic energy will not last forever because volcanoes blow up, destroy stuff, die out, and will ultimately go away when the earth is gone. Utopias are supposed to last forever. How do we deal with that?

-How do you deal with crime without brainwashing and altering what is fundamental to being a human?

-How can you be certain you will always have enough volunteers to keep things going? You can't have something perfect run on assumptions such as "well there will always be enough people wanting to do the job."

-How do we deal with possible dealings with aliens in the future if we have no chosen person to represent us? Again, a utopia that is supposed to last forever should always have a plan for these things.

-Isn't it funny that you've got these crazy ideas for technology to manage our lives, yet you've still got us relying on something as old and temporary as geothermal energy? That won't last forever. Those volcanoes will erupt and eventually the entire earth will shatter. How does the zeitgeist plan on dealing with that? That's not speculation on my part, that is an undeniable and inevitable fact. Really, all this juxtaposition of made-up and real technology almost seems like they've been shoved together just to give an appearance of doability, with no real grounding in the research of real technologies that can accomplish these things. You've taken a made-up technology and patched it up with a few existing technologies so everything isn't made up and theoretical. Nice try.

@Lilani
In response to "that wasn't so hard":
Doing what is ostensibly "your work" to help you understand these topics BEFORE you spout your conclusion on them really IS asking too much in polite discourse. At some point, you need to contribute your own learned position, not just react to my interpretations of it without any study of your own.

To say, most of the basics i've contributed here (not complete by any measure) could be found with a small amount of research on your own into these ideas. But ok, am willing to help you further.

In response to your 3 / 4 questions:

1) To be clear, this is not really a relevant or realistic question. Put another way, the answer is "it doesn't matter", as the events will go like this: the early systems will require more man-power than later systems will require. The early systems will be administered by the same people who today volunteer their time to help their communities selflessly. There will always be hunger, so there will always be someone willing to help run the systems. Yes, in the beginning there will certain people, in response to the forced labor they've had to endure previously, who won't want to help but that is ok; they'll come around once they realize their happiness is in part based on the tools running well. Sounds like you don't know many people today who give their time selflessly to help their communities; there are more than you realize. Eventually the need for a human element will decrease, as efficiency in automation increases.

2) SIGH you are so presuming that i think i'm better than you (i don't, only understand your ego feels threatened by new ideas and you need someone to lash out against), but then you don't even bother to research these basic questions that have already been answered in the materials available about these ideas REPEATEDLY. Instead you rudely demand i answer these same questions! Whatever. To start, just read my posts above; most crime is the RESULT of our current values & environment (based on needless scarcity). When we change our values and the environment, then the causes of most crime (scarcity), disappears. It's hard for you to imagine, because you haven't known anything else; however there are studies that prove this.

3) You already know the answer to this, but then you go ahead and try to rebut the answer before it is even understood... sigh. Yes, we'd do what we've done for millennia, work to improve our species. Only now it will be without the harmful structures that hold us back.

4) Scarcity is a reality, but not the needless scarcity that we've engineered into our environment to increase profits. The real scarcity of resources is something we'll all worth together to address. Essentially we'll use tools to empower us to measure what is needed, what is available, what is needed, and how we might mitigate any shortages. Given the transmutative properties to energy (and all that we know as real) we'll still have the same challenges as today to be creative to meet needs where resources cannot. Except now we won't be bound by the inefficient & wholly wasteful systems that exist today. Over 100 companies competing for resources to make toothpaste? Are you freaking serious?

As for your notion of some "enemy" which aliens do you speak of? hahahah (did i just write that?)

I love synchronicity; the 1st captcha this time was "back track" as in, having to cover previously covered ground because someone isn't doing their part to add to the discussion *ahem* as in, the whole reason for this reply. The 2nd captcha was "foregone conclusion" as in "why argue with people who consider it a foregone conclusion that no positive change is possible"?

@Lilani
Read my post above for some perspective on Utopia... the fact that you would persist that Utopia is some unstated goal, shows very clearly that you're not even trying to have a discussion here.

For example, what evidence are you using to state: "Geothermic energy will not last forever because volcanoes blow up, destroy stuff, die out, and will ultimately go away when the earth is gone?"
What date will that happen? It is rhetorical because this whole line of questioning is completely ridiculous.

Clearly the goal isn't to post on Escapist the solution to life's problems for all eternity (WTF Lilani? Seriously). It is about discussing the _1st steps_ towards a better life than we have now. What happens after that, none of us can logically presume.

Am not going to try to answer any of your troll posts any more. It sounds like you have a reasonably analytical mind; just wish instead you used it to help your fellow human beings instead of creating ridiculous logic in effort to derail the good efforts of well-meaning people.

Such behavior might suit you no? Depends on your values I guess!

PercyBoleyn:

thaluikhain:

It is the best humanity can offer for the time being based on what humanity is now, and has been for time out of mind. Progress is being made, things may be different in the future, but for now there's only so much we can hope for.

Now see, I just don't agree with that. There are countries that have done a much better job at solving social issues and such. To say that we are at the peak of our social evolution is to ignore reality. We CAN do a much better job and other people already have done so. We just need to do the same. Now I'm not referring specifically to the US, I don't even live there, but it is a very good example of a country that can improve itself by quite a bit.

Yes and no. Yes, the US could be different, but no, it won't be any time soon because it's the US. It can't suddenly change all it is into something else, even if that something else is better.

Casemon:
I love how so many people here think that "today" is as good as it gets;

Not a single person in this thread said anything of the sort. Exercise a shred of integrity in your arguments, please.

If you think any form of social cooperation is "communism" (seriously? still with this old propaganda programming here in 2012?), then you have outdated info.

Identify specifically which poster claimed any form of social cooperation was "communism" please.

Time to update the info boys! Adapting to this reality is as simple a choice as between you perishing and you surviving.

You claim there is updated info- then your job is to provide the fucking info. At least, if you want to achieve anything for the betterment of humanity. If all you want to be is a smug wanker preaching for a cult, then berating people for not just accepting that you know what you're talking about without evidence like you are doing now is the right way to go.

thaluikhain:

Yes and no. Yes, the US could be different, but no, it won't be any time soon because it's the US. It can't suddenly change all it is into something else, even if that something else is better.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't try.

PercyBoleyn:

thaluikhain:
In the meantime, the societies we have now, with all the flaws you quite rightfully object to, are about the closest we can get.

Now that's just complete bull. This corrupted, bloated mess of bullshit is not the best humanity can offer, not by a longshot.

As matters stand, I have to agree with him. Not because we can't conceive of and/or implement better systems, and also not because we can't slowly improve the current systems, but because we have a tendency to screw major changes along these lines up of our own volition.

People have been attempting to bring about Utopian societies for millennia, many of which are at least philosophically quite similar to the one envisioned in the OP. They've all failed to date, or at least devolved to something far short of the original goal. The circumstances point to their failure being a result of human nature, not necessarily due to problems with the plan itself. If you want to change the world, you have to change the way all or at least nearly all of humanity perceives and interacts with the world as well.

Which presents a bit of a problem. Human nature is indeed subject to change, but it does not do so easily or quickly. Many Utopian theorists attempt to bypass this by predicting that human nature will change for the better as a direct result of the created environment, but even if the claim is accurate, they tend to fail to account for the fact that the environment in question requires human beings to have already changed in order to create and support it. Its a catch-22 of epic proportions.

EDIT: take a while to finish a post, and miss a whole half page of new content...

PercyBoleyn:

thaluikhain:

Yes and no. Yes, the US could be different, but no, it won't be any time soon because it's the US. It can't suddenly change all it is into something else, even if that something else is better.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't try.

The US, and indeed the entire western world, is trying to change, and often succeeding at changing. You may or may not consider some of the changes in question positive overall, and you may or may not consider the rate of change sufficient, just don't deny that it occurs. Overall, considering the historical view, I have to say that the rate at which the modern world is changing for the better is astonishingly fast. In previous eras, multiple centuries would often pass before even successful changes to culture would occur. These days, you can spot notable differences in between individual decades.

Casemon:
@Katatori-kun
Awww name-calling AGAIN!? Does someone need a time-out?

As abrasive as the tone may or may not be, the points he makes seem valid.

It was pretty good when attached closer to the Venus Project. However, now its not directly attached and while it still holds a lot of the same goals, it has such strong ties to conspiracy theory and misinformed idealism that without a direct connection to something with a pragmatic plan for approaching their idealistic goal it just because the philosophical equivalent of a particularly interesting stoner circle.

Heronblade:
snip

We don't have to dream about utopia to recognize that our current society has numerous issues that need solving. I disagree with people being so cynical as to say that this, right now, is the best huamnity can offer. It's not.

Heronblade:

Which presents a bit of a problem. Human nature is indeed subject to change, but it does not do so easily or quickly.

You're right, which is why it's better to make multiple small changes rather than one big one.

Casemon:
For example, what evidence are you using to state: "Geothermic energy will not last forever because volcanoes blow up, destroy stuff, die out, and will ultimately go away when the earth is gone?"
What date will that happen? It is rhetorical because this whole line of questioning is completely ridiculous.

Am not going to try to answer any of your troll posts any more. It sounds like you have a reasonably analytical mind; just wish instead you used it to help your fellow human beings instead of trying to derail good efforts by well-meaning people with ridiculous logic.

Such behavior might suit you no? Depends on your values I guess!

Lol, what? Have you not done YOUR geology and astronomy homework yet? I already told you Yellowstone blows ever 600,000 years and it's been 605,000 years since it last erupted, so that one's due pretty soon (well, geologically speaking, which means anywhere from a year to 20,000 years). Every other active volcano (and, FYI, geothermal energy requires an ACTIVE volcano) is sort of active, and as the name implies it will erupt at one point or another. They don't just sit there looking pretty, they blow. And when they blow, there isn't much we can do about it (or much we should, it's a perfectly natural process which the earth has gone through since it first formed).

Also, as the sun ages, it will expand into a red giant. It will be a few hundred million years now, but it will eventually happen. And if the zeitgeist utopia lasts that long, which if it is a utopia it well should, then you'd better be ready for it. Ready to leave the earth and take our place among the stars, and all that jazz.

Clearly the goal isn't to post on Escapist the solution to life's problems for all eternity (WTF Lilani? Seriously). It is about discussing the _1st steps_ towards a better life than we have now. What happens after that, none of us can logically presume.

But that is exactly what you are claiming! Do you deny that you believe the zeitgeist is supposed to build a utopia that will never fail? One that will last forever? Well, if that's the case, then you had better be ready to deliver on that promise. If you promise forever and can't provide it, then don't be surprised if people aren't exactly throwing themselves into your boat. You did this to yourself. You promised a perfect solution. Why are you so surprised I took you at your word?

@Knight Templar
Frankly, if your sincere in your interest on this subject of "humanity is in the toilet, how do we get out", you would do some work to understand the ideas presented before drawing your conclusions. You and several others with your posts, have proven this false.

The fact you ask such common (read: already answered) questions shows that you have not done even a small amount of work to understand it...

My conclusion; you are insincere about wanting to discuss this topic. And yet you continue to demand i do your research for you?

How about, no, if you want to learn about a topic, you will. If you wish to remain ignorant of a topic and still think your uninformed opinions are worth much... welcome to the internet!

To say, no matter how much time you spend on this forum (over 7k posts, wow! imagine what you could accomplish if you didn't sit on the internet all day arguing with people!?) until you show even a modicum of interest in this topic (evidenced by your informed questions), yours is an opinion that doesn't matter to me (see above about 'insincerity').

Sorry!

It must be awesome to sit there and talk down to everyone on the thread like they're either a fucking idiot or a blind sheeple, then have the unmitigated gall to bitch about "name-calling."

Casemon, if you expect people to interact with you and listen to your ideas, stop acting like anyone who even asks you a question is some head-in-the-sand tool of the machine. Jesus Christ, talk about someone a little too in love with the scent of their own flatulence.

@Lilani
No one promised that; that is your projections interfering with reality.

They are familiarly the result of the same programming most of us receive; good luck!

@Tyler Perry
Oh! Am I not on ignore anymore? Wow, what a happy day! [/sarcasm]

Next time you post, please try contributing useful something to the discussion?

(Blathering about how easily you are threatened by new ideas, doesn't really help anyone)

Casemon:
@Lilani
No one promised that; that is your projections interfering with reality.

They are familiarly the result of the same programming most of us receive; good luck!

Something perfect requires the perfect plan. The only one I'm seeing programmed is you. So programmed you won't even admit to a single flaw in the plan. News flash--the clearest sign of a cult is when nobody within the group will even consider the possibility of a flaw or mistake within the beliefs of their group. Even the Catholic Church admits that kids have gotten molested and they shouldn't have been so mean to Galileo when he said the earth revolves around the sun. I'm done here, clearly you are so diluted you are beyond the point of being able to consider things for yourself anymore. But here's a tip: If you're going to try this again sometime, try providing some solid information instead of refusing to answer people's questions and saying they are diluted and lying to themselves for not taking some random person on the Internet whose moniker sounds like a Digimon at their word.

But, I'm not too worried. Zeitgeist is most common among teenagers and those in their early 20s, as a way of trying to convince themselves they've got life all figured out. So you'll either grow out of it or end up wasting your life using really poor persuasion techniques trying (and always failing, like here) to convince people your cult is anything but a bunch of hot air and speculation.

Casemon:
(over 7k posts, wow! imagine what you could accomplish if you didn't sit on the internet all day arguing with people!?)

I wanted to give a legitimate response to you, but you wouldn't read it would you? I mean you don't know anything about my position on this subject, and yet come out swinging like you've been let off a leash. As if insulting me and others is a valid response.

Knight Templar:

Casemon:
(over 7k posts, wow! imagine what you could accomplish if you didn't sit on the internet all day arguing with people!?)

I wanted to give a legitimate response to you, but you wouldn't read it would you? I mean you don't know anything about my position on this subject, and yet come out swinging like you've been let off a leash. As if insulting me and others is a valid response.

Meh, ignore him. With the Escapist's mandated niceness policy, he won't last long with his piss-poor attitude towards those who don't kowtow before his every word.

And nothing of value will be lost.

Casemon:

1. "There will always be hunger, so there will always be someone willing to help run the systems" Are you saying that only people that run the systems get fed? Cool, that is at least a realistic incentive in the interim, until you can 'persuade' everyone that it's a good system.

2. Crime is not exclusively the result of lack of base needs. Ever heard of a career criminal? What about a fraudster? A mafioso? None of those are committing crimes to feed themselves. They do it because it gets them power, or some other additional benefit.
For example, I live in the UK, and over here it's pretty difficult to actually put your life in danger due to financial difficulty - we have a strong welfare state. There's still crime. The riots here last summer weren't about getting enough money to pay for food, they were about getting a new TV.
So how are you going to deal with the level of crime that remains even after you alleviate everyone from poverty? Anything short of massive indoctrination isn't going to work.

4. "Transmutative properties to energy". What does that mean? And with regard to reducing wastefulness - who decides what is wasteful? Is it computers, is it some government, is it plebiscite?
Is music production wasteful? Is the media? What about uneducated Somalians - they're a bit of a drain on resources until you can indoctrinate them properly, are they not? In fact, the same could be said for anyone who doesn't agree with the system...
I'm sure you have an explanation for why that wouldn't happen - could you be a dear and provide it?

As for the rest, I do have some concerns. I've been wikipedia-ing the zeitgeist movement - and there seems to be this odd obsession with concentric cities. Could you explain why that is? It sounds a little too much like Aramanth for my liking.If you've got people segregated depending on what job they do, they it's pretty much inevitable that you'll get discrimination and lack of social mobility.
Again, I'm sure that there's something I've missed, so what is it?

I'm actually trying to get to grips with this whole movement and debate reasonably, as evidenced my my previous (ignored) post, so please don't pull the "You're being willfully ignorant" line with me!

OneCatch :
As for the rest, I do have some concerns. I've been wikipedia-ing the zeitgeist movement - and there seems to be this odd obsession with concentric cities. Could you explain why that is?

Concentric? As in, built in various rings? I don't know anything about what that movement thinks of cities, but when I hear that I'm reminded of urban planning colleges where they taught about the 'garden city of tomorrow', an ideal city concept put forward by Ebenezer Howard;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Cities_of_To-morrow

OneCatch :
It sounds a little too much like Aramanth for my liking.

Oh my god. I have never seen anybody reference that series.
I don't know why but this both amazes and pleases me.

Casemon:
@thaluikhain

For fuck sake press the quote button so people actually see you've replied to them.

Casemon:
You make a lot of claims that something is impossible. Evidence?

Nothing is impossible so long as it does not break the confines of our reality.

Moving everyone together in the next 10 years from Europe, the USA, Middle East, India... oh look... culture clash... Religious division... and instead of being thousands of miles away these people are you're next door neighbour... it would be like the British carving up India again... bloodshed resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths due to starvation, dehydration from the move, as well as mass violence on the move and when people arrive.

You are going to severely change the way we operate in order to do this.

Zeitgeism could work. In... 3, 4... maybe 5 hundred years.
We being humans though are going to have a large war by then... everytime we have a large war the playing field changes to something inrecogniseable... this idea could be kicked backwards or forwards hundreds of years...

Please stop preaching it as if it could happen within the next 100 years as unless you're planning to commit genocide or control peoples thoughts then it ain't happening too soon.

Heronblade:
In fact, I wonder from time to time if the founders of the movement just fell in love with the society described by the tv show Star Trek, forgetting that it relies on tech that we will probably never be able to duplicate.

This thread went on for over two pages after this post /threaded it, and has made absolutely no progress since then. >.>

Meh!

Machines that can run everything? No thanks Skynet Zeitgeist! In all seriousness, this sounds like idealistic drivel, and it's pretentious proponents in this thread aren't helping it at all.

evilneko:

, and has made absolutely no progress since then. >.>

Meh!

sounds like the zeitgeist movement.

Blablahb:

OneCatch :
As for the rest, I do have some concerns. I've been wikipedia-ing the zeitgeist movement - and there seems to be this odd obsession with concentric cities. Could you explain why that is?

Concentric? As in, built in various rings? I don't know anything about what that movement thinks of cities, but when I hear that I'm reminded of urban planning colleges where they taught about the 'garden city of tomorrow', an ideal city concept put forward by Ebenezer Howard;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Cities_of_To-morrow

From what I can see, it's partly inspired by that idea - except it makes even less sense. They'd have cities organised in rings purely by the production type, and there doesn't seem to be the same concern with greenery. Check that italic-ed quote below!

Knight Templar:

OneCatch :
It sounds a little too much like Aramanth for my liking.

Oh my god. I have never seen anybody reference that series.
I don't know why but this both amazes and pleases me.

I was hoping that someone else would get it! :D
It does seem to fit the bill as an analogy though - even if it wasn't intended that way, that's what you'd end up with:

"The city structure will consist of concentric rings, every ring serving one critical function necessary for the function of a self-sufficient city: agriculture, energy production, residents, hospitals, schools, etc. For agriculture, hydroponics and aeroponics are mentioned as a possible solutions for food shortages. Maglev trains provide transport for the city residents. Manufacturing and construction become automated with mechanized technologies, such as three-dimensional printing and computer-aided manufacturing. Mentioned energy production methods: photovoltaic paint, wind turbines, pressure transducers and geothermal power plants."

On practical terms, a ring is about the least efficient way of organising an industry on a larger scale, why not use individual circles spread out? There must be a reason, and I'd say that that reason is the designer's perception of sorting things according to importance.
Which is somewhat ironic in a supposedly utopian and equal society.
A concentric structure in itself lends itself to the idea of a spectrum of importance, especially if the population is segregated into these rings. You'll end up with a social segregation between different industries - which is very definitely not utopianism!

Back to practicality; how on earth is a ring of hospitals going to help anyone?! Or a ring of power stations? And isn't maglev horribly inefficient with current technology? Any why do you need a 'ring' of agriculture - have that, y'know, outside the city, surely? I could go on...

OneCatch :
On practical terms, a ring is about the least efficient way of organising an industry on a larger scale, why not use individual circles spread out? There must be a reason, and I'd say that that reason is the designer's perception of sorting things according to importance.
Which is somewhat ironic in a supposedly utopian and equal society.
A concentric structure in itself lends itself to the idea of a spectrum of importance, especially if the population is segregated into these rings. You'll end up with a social segregation between different industries - which is very definitely not utopianism!

Back to practicality; how on earth is a ring of hospitals going to help anyone?! Or a ring of power stations? And isn't maglev horribly inefficient with current technology? Any why do you need a 'ring' of agriculture - have that, y'know, outside the city, surely? I could go on...

Agreed. A "spoked wheel" layout would be much more efficient, and would more accurately symbolize a totally equal society. Have people living in a center hub, and then have all the different industries (Agriculture, power, water, hospitals, etc) branch off that hub into a circle, like the spokes of a bicycle (which is also the layout of the Magic Kingdom of Walt Disney World. The design was specifically chosen for its simplicity and efficiency).

Plus, if everything forms a nice big circle, that reflects back to the round table where everybody is equal and nobody is at the "head" of the table. As you said, a concentric city would hold set up a built-in hierarchy, which would weigh on people's minds. And it would be terribly inefficient, having to cross through all those other areas to get from one end to the other. My only guess behind the logic of that sort of a setup is to have a city which is aesthetically different from any other modern cities (or the ones who came up with it were fans of the Lord of the Rings and wanted to pay homage to Minas Tirith).

Lilani:
My only guess behind the logic of that sort of a setup is to have a city which is aesthetically different from any other modern cities (or the ones who came up with it were fans of the Lord of the Rings and wanted to pay homage to Minas Tirith).

Or The nine spheres of Phyrexia!!! (or 12 of hell)

OT: Whoever said that this thing was like a cult was spot on by the way. And isn't the point of science to adjust your understanding with further experimentation/simulation? rather than fanciful speculation?

Lilani:

keiskay:
their idea of a "resource based economy" is actually a post scarcity economy. they believe that with current technology and future advances we can manufacture everything human beings need. sounds very idealistic on paper but its never been tested out ever and ignores so much real scientific and economical research that its fucking idiotic. it is basically a pure communist society with a heavy stance on technology.

the zeit geist movement was originally about "waking" people up and tried (very poorly by the way) to sway people to atheism and to try and to get people to believe in their economy plan. the attacks on religion were poor and very misinformed trying to compare many ancient pagan style religions with christianity, specifically the resurrection but it was all made up bull shit that was disproven by millions of people with a quick google search. so the second movie ignored religion (since the guy doesn't know shit) and introduced the biggest scam called the venus project.

the venus project is a movement that openly ask for donations so that they can start up a post scarcity area. but i would rather throw my money in a trash can since its the same result.

Ah, okay. I think I have heard of this, then. Really? A world where machines can produce EVERYTHING we need, without us EVER having to feed or maintain the machines themselves? Who could buy into that? Yes, humans are awesome and all, but nothing is infinite and we will always have to work to maintain a certain standard of living.

Why? No really, I'm serious, why? [[I'm going to stop here and note that I do not, in any way, support the loons being referred to in the OP, however...]] If technology reaches a level of automation of resource gathering, refining, production, and self-maintenance where the only "cost" of an object is energy(also "free"), then what point is there in current orthodox economics?

Just because some whackjobs have jumped on this concept doesn't mean the concept itself is bunk; it's speculative, certainly, but there are entire scientific institutes devoted to researching ways to make it happen. I mean hell, who would buy into the idea that the current system we've devised is the best we can devise, and that its core principles will forever drive human socio-economic interaction? THAT'S hubris, if anything ever was.

Magichead:

Lilani:
Ah, okay. I think I have heard of this, then. Really? A world where machines can produce EVERYTHING we need, without us EVER having to feed or maintain the machines themselves? Who could buy into that? Yes, humans are awesome and all, but nothing is infinite and we will always have to work to maintain a certain standard of living.

Why? No really, I'm serious, why? [[I'm going to stop here and note that I do not, in any way, support the loons being referred to in the OP, however...]] If technology reaches a level of automation of resource gathering, refining, production, and self-maintenance where the only "cost" of an object is energy(also "free"), then what point is there in current orthodox economics?

Just because some whackjobs have jumped on this concept doesn't mean the concept itself is bunk; it's speculative, certainly, but there are entire scientific institutes devoted to researching ways to make it happen. I mean hell, who would buy into the idea that the current system we've devised is the best we can devise, and that its core principles will forever drive human socio-economic interaction? THAT'S hubris, if anything ever was.

Well, what I was referring to there was that there are LITERALLY only so many raw materials on this planet. There's only so much metal, precious metal, dirt, clay, air, water, etc. If humanity keeps expanding, which some situation like the zeitgeist would allow, and people are allowed to have as much of these resources as they want without personal cost, there will be a point where the amount available is not limited by the cost but by the literal amount that physically exists on the planet.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve, I'm just saying this process in the long-term is a LOT more complicated than build magic machines that give us everything we want >>> live on auto-pilot for eternity. Later I also got into how LOOONG into the future (which, if this truly is a perfect system, should still exist that far into the future), we will have to deal with the eventual destruction of the earth via the expansion and dying of the sun, and by then possibly aliens as we go to other worlds searching for more real estate and raw materials. But then the person arguing for it called me a loony for trying to think so far ahead (even though he was claiming this was supposed to be a perfect system that will last humanity forever).

Lilani:

Magichead:

Lilani:
Ah, okay. I think I have heard of this, then. Really? A world where machines can produce EVERYTHING we need, without us EVER having to feed or maintain the machines themselves? Who could buy into that? Yes, humans are awesome and all, but nothing is infinite and we will always have to work to maintain a certain standard of living.

Why? No really, I'm serious, why? [[I'm going to stop here and note that I do not, in any way, support the loons being referred to in the OP, however...]] If technology reaches a level of automation of resource gathering, refining, production, and self-maintenance where the only "cost" of an object is energy(also "free"), then what point is there in current orthodox economics?

Just because some whackjobs have jumped on this concept doesn't mean the concept itself is bunk; it's speculative, certainly, but there are entire scientific institutes devoted to researching ways to make it happen. I mean hell, who would buy into the idea that the current system we've devised is the best we can devise, and that its core principles will forever drive human socio-economic interaction? THAT'S hubris, if anything ever was.

Well, what I was referring to there was that there are LITERALLY only so many raw materials on this planet. There's only so much metal, precious metal, dirt, clay, air, water, etc. If humanity keeps expanding, which some situation like the zeitgeist would allow, and people are allowed to have as much of these resources as they want without personal cost, there will be a point where the amount available is not limited by the cost but by the literal amount that physically exists on the planet.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve, I'm just saying this process in the long-term is a LOT more complicated than build magic machines that give us everything we want >>> live on auto-pilot for eternity. Later I also got into how LOOONG into the future (which, if this truly is a perfect system, should still exist that far into the future), we will have to deal with the eventual destruction of the earth via the expansion and dying of the sun, and by then possibly aliens as we go to other worlds searching for more real estate and raw materials. But then the person arguing for it called me a loony for trying to think so far ahead (even though he was claiming this was supposed to be a perfect system that will last humanity forever).

Sure, cling to the preconceived notions of your failed system!!1 MY IDEAS FRIGHTEN YOU.

Tyler Perry:
Sure, cling to the preconceived notions of your failed system!!1 MY IDEAS FRIGHTEN YOU.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of--OMIGOSH SPIDER MAN!

image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked