Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What would a perfect world look like?      Home login  
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 121
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?Page 6 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
The inevitable boom-bust of water politics and supply and demand in the west was one factor in my then-mate and I deciding to stay in the eastern US. It is because of those water politics that rainwater collecting laws started to become common. Laws like that are the result of ignoring science in favor of brainless quick-fixes that do more harm than good.

Water supplies and access are fast becoming the most politically charged conflicts that will pervade the world in the next few decades. Already over 2 billion people in the world are suffering from water insecurity and that number is projected to more than double within a decade or two.

Here in the Chattanooga area, like most river towns, there is considerable pressure in dealing with too much water falling at once, overloading sewage systems causing overflows of raw stuff into the river. As a result, there are a lot of initiatives for rainwater collection and re-use even in the commercial sector. Green roofs are becoming common and touted for their benefits. Permeable parking lots are becoming the new normal. Despite these initiatives, the Tennessee River downstream from Chattanooga's sewage "treatment" plant, is suffering from hypothermia, hyperthermia, and prolific masses of weed growth (hydrilla and milfoil) that result from nutrient overloads. The River is on chemo-therapy, spraying toxic chemicals to control the weeds, and life support with aerators operating below some dams to pump oxygen back into the river. There are times in the summers when the nuke plants have to shut down because they raise the temperature of the river too much and can kill remaining aquatic resources for miles downstream.

Despite the abundance of the water resource in this little city, the water supply has been privitized by European companies, something done increasingly around the nation and the world.
Around a decade ago, when the city and county tried to act to take control of their water supply, to control the commons of the Tennessee River, the then-German owners of the water company mounted a $6 million PR campaign that resulted in defeat of that inititiative. The recently announced 24% increase in water bills has people again up in arms, and the full paid ads are again appearing to tout the benefits of private enterpriCe over "gubmint controlled water". The fools will fall for it again.

The eastern equivalent to the giant sucking sound that is LA in the west, Atlanta, has long been fighting water wars with Florida and Alabama over the amounts withdrawn from the commons of the rivers that flow through GA to those states. Atlanta has been attacking to the north, across the Tennessee border, demanding to put a giant straw into the most ecologically challenged part of the Tennessee River. They challenged a survey from the mid-1800s to try to move the border north a couple miles to touch the TN. River. Whatever falls from the tiny parth of the NW corner of GA into the TN. River watersheds is used by those communities. What Atlanta and Georgia would do if they get to do interbasin withdrawals will be to essentially issue a death knell to much of the TN. River.

Of course, being the south, there was gentle political theatre as Tennessee mayors delivered a truckload of bottle water to Atlanta to lecture them on conservation, efficiency and water management in general. Being polite, in the same vein, Radio stations in Tennessee also did a Toys for Twats campaign to collect vibrators for the women of Alabama when legislators outlawed them, instead of dealing with real issues like their own water supplies.

If things are getting desperate and insane in a water rich part of the world like this place, getting nearly 5 feet of precip a year, imagine how things are going to play out in the water wars around the world. Water wars will get quite deadly from demand conflicts, contamination and inability to adequately access safe potable supplies.

It's insane to squander remaining aquifers and surface waters for fracking. The mother frackers had unlimited supplies from Texas aquifers during last years' drought, while citizens were put on austere restrictions. At least southern Ohio is getting it.

In one of the oddest of twists, an activist of great reknown and respect is accused of "child porn" at a congressional hearing, for showing a picture of a 5 year old girl in a tub of orange acidic water contaminated by arsenic. One senator, incapable of understanding the true obscenity of 1200 miles of streams being destroyed, wells poisoned, extremely high childhood cancer rates and other assaults on human health and dignity in the coal fields of Appalachia, focused on the youngster instead of seeing the water. The perve probably saw the Coppertone Girl and Kim Phuc as obscenity.
Joined: 10/22/2010
Msg: 122
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/9/2012 2:02:00 PM

Despite the abundance of the water resource in this little city, the water supply has been privitized by European companies, something done increasingly around the nation and the world.
Around a decade ago, when the city and county tried to act to take control of their water supply, to control the commons of the Tennessee River, the then-German owners of the water company mounted a $6 million PR campaign that resulted in defeat of that inititiative. The recently announced 24% increase in water bills has people again up in arms, and the full paid ads are again appearing to tout the benefits of private enterpriCe over "gubmint controlled water". The fools will fall for it again.

If that was ever suggested up here, their would be anarchy and revolution instantly.
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 123
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/9/2012 6:08:36 PM
Great post, EP

I thank God I live in Massachusetts.

This country is going to reap what it sows Romney get in and talking about how many "jobs" there will be when we privatize and downsize the federal government .....and listen closely for his handlers quietly cackling away.
Joined: 4/22/2012
Msg: 124
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/10/2012 5:28:46 PM
“Pretty sky,” I said.
“It is a perfect sky?”
“Well, it’s always a perfect sky, Don.”
“Are you telling me that even though it’s changing every second, the sky is always a perfect sky?”
“Gee, I’m smart. Yes!”
“And the sea is always a perfect sea, and it’s always changing, too,” he said. “If perfection is stagnation, then heaven is a swamp!
And the Is ain’t hardly no swamp-cookie.”
“Isn’t hardly no swamp-cookie,” I corrected, absently. “Perfect, and all the time changing. Yeah. I’ll buy that.”
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 125
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/10/2012 9:47:32 PM

Sorry about the delay, again. I didn't get a chance to start writing until Saturday.

(I'm just skipping the iphone example, because I think I get scarcity economics.)

I don't blame you. It was necessary for my argument, as a point of reference. I surely didn't enjoy writing it.

I'm going to be jumping around a little bit, through your post. So, please bare with me.

Just to put a frame of reference on this, "it has to be global". Jacque Fresco, referring to the implementation of the Venus Project.

The theory is about an advanced society where there are plenty of iPhones for everyone, sharing or not.

It would be more useful to point out why abundance is impossible to achieve and maintain in a high-tech, moneyless society, because at the moment it doesn't seem impossible to me.

Ok, this one was a given for me (which is probably why I glossed over it), but let's do that then:

We are talking about more than 7,000,000,000 iPhones ( in fact I would say 1.33 times the population (give or take) at any given time, in order to account for loss/brakage/replacement/rotation. So, the actual figure would be more like, 9,310,000,000 - however this is going to be off set by excluding all the people that fall outside the appropriate age group; I would say about fourteen years of age: the number ends up being 7,824,833,332). To put this in perspective for you, as of march, 2011, 108,000,000 iPhones have been sold world wide. Now, that is not to say that there are, one-hundred eight million iPhones in circulation today. let's go with the 1.33 rule of thumb (which is by no means accurate, just a guess). So, the number would look more like 81,203,000. And of course, this would be minus apple's supply stock, which may some what balance this this figure back out. To put this even further into perspective, let's take a look at one of the most highly manufactured products on the face of the earth, cars:

(Huffington Post)

"According to a report from Ward's Auto released last week, the global number of cars exceeded 1.015 billion in 2010, jumping from 980 million the year before."

Only one billion cars on the roads today. One billion! And cars have been being manufactured for more than a century now. Hell, even with circular cities and good public transport, that still isn't enough cars to even be shared. We're going to need at least another billion or two or more. And this doesn't even address the problem of how people will react to other people, in society, who get to have a car full time, out of necessity, due to their function in society.

So, this is just two products. let's go for even more perspective, but let's cut the numbers in half, because many of these things are household items that get shared on a limited basis. Four billion TV's, microwaves, ovens, refrigerators, PC's, houses/living spaces, ceiling fans, AC units, beds, etc, so on and so forth. 

I think that you can see where I am going with this. Do you really think, by these numbers, that there is not a genuine sacristy problem involved here? And I mean MANY times over. We would, quite literally, have to strip the planet bare, in order to achieve this - and even then, I don't think it could be done. Not only this, but we haven't even factored in your autonomous manufacturing and distribution system yet, which is going to have to be quite enormous, by the way.

The ideas put forth by the Venus Project can only function properly if abundance can be achieved (and even then there are some major issues which I will talk about later) Is scarcity real? I hope that, by the above, I have demonstrated that the answer to this is, yes, very much so. 

Let's set the numbers aside for a moment and ask the question of, how we get from here to there? First, we have to build your autonomous infrastructure, an enormous apparatus the likes of which the world has never seen. Who is going to build this? What will be their motivation for doing it? Will they do it for free? How will we rest control of the existing infrastructure from those who currently control it, in order to begin this task - it will be necessary to begin with the existing infrastructure. What about the jobs that cannot be automated: mining, many aspects of agriculture, many aspects of manufacturing, construction, etc. If we are upping production to churn out your apparatus and all of these new products, there will be a serious need for major additions to our current labor force. Funny, what comes to mind when I think about this: the slaves who built the pyramids, only, I don't think that the pyramids would even come close in comparison. The list of impractical situations humanity would have to be put into, in order to accomplish this vision of a utopia, continues on very much further than I care to continue to carry it any longer.

Let's examine some of the ideas that have been put forth, by the Venus Project, to attempt to solve these problems, and gauge their feasibility.

First, I think that it is important, to draw a line, and say that we will not be regressing, technologically speaking. An iPhone is an iPhone. I would not settle for an inferior replacement, that is "almost" an iPhone. We need to be progressing technologically, never regressing or stagnant and incapable of moving forward. In my opinion, the most important overarching goal of humanity, right now, should be to get off this planet (it's kinda like having all your eggs in one basket, ya know). There are many things that could happen, at any time, that could completely whip us out (rouge brown dwarf could wander through our system, massive meteor/comet strike, etc). And then what, no more human beings or the unique brand of life from the planet earth, that's what. We need to be constantly chipping away at Moore's Law, and headed towards the technology singularity, for better or worse, it's our only hope.

Wow, so I just went over to the Venus Projects site to gather material to review for this part of my analysis, and found that there was nothing of any worth there to review. I was expecting science, in the form of testable proposals about how the Venus Project might be implemented, instead, I found nothing but a single essay filled with nothing but a bunch of rhetorical nonsense? And a video, and what looks to be a very thin book, designed with displaying pictures in mind? Both $25 apiece. Which is kind of ironic, coming from a group advocating the abolition of money. And not one scientifically arrived at  proposal, again very ironic coming from a group advocating that humanities only salvation lies in the proper application of science. Non-the-less, let's continue on.

There were two things that I picked out of the essay, that were mildly useful. They are as follows:

Stated goals of the Venus Project:

1. Realizing the declaration of the world's resources as being the common heritage of all people.
2. Transcending the artificial boundaries that currently and arbitrarily separate people.
3. Replacing money-based nationalistic economies with a resource-based world economy.
4. Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control.
5. Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.
6. Redesigning cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.
7. Gradually outgrowing corporate entities and governments, (local, national, or supra-national) as means of social management.
8. Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.
9. Developing and using clean renewable energy sources.
10. Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.
11. Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.
12. Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavour.
13. Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.
14. Eliminating elitism, technical or otherwise.
15. Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.
16. Enhancing communication in schools so that our language is relevant to the physical conditions of the world.
17. Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.
18. Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.

And, the closing paragraph from the essay:

The Venus Project does not advocate dissolving the existing free-enterprise system. We believe it will eventually evolve towards a resource-based society of common heritage in due course. All that The Venus Project offers is an alternative approach for your consideration.

Let's begin with the latter quote, because there are some related elements in your post that I would like to address.

You're assuming the masses are as ignorant as they are now. With the burden of wage-slavery removed, with time to learn, the least educated person in this society would be like one of us compared to the uneducated peasant of 500 years ago. I would say that new algorithms would be put forward by anyone for scrutiny by all and if passed by a majority of the world it would be implemented directly into the computer. Isn't that how true democracy should work?

In the time it took soviet russia to make one car, modern technology can make a hell of a lot more, with far fewer people - and that is now, so imagine in 100, or 1000 years time.

500 years ago most of us were superstitious peasants plowing dirt by hand or by ox. Now we have nuclear fusion, container ships, desalination plants, hydroponics, 3D printing, you name it. 500 years from now, what is possible?

the Venus Project quote speaks volumes, I mean, what are we even talking about here? In what way is this a solution to any of the problems we currently face? Such as, the current severe inequalities in this world (your 1% Vs. the other 99%). Regardless, here is the thinking. If we wait another hundred or two hundred years or more, technology will fix everything. There will be an abundance of literally everything. So, I have a question here. Does this technical revolution come with a built in mechanism for the spontaneous reduction in the human population growth rate (and if you are going to attempt to answer this rhetorical question, I expect it to be backed up by some science)? Because at the moment projections for the growth rate are at doubling every forty years. Which means, that in just one hundred years time, that would put the  human population at roughly forty-two billion. This number seems impractical, so let's say that there is some kind of upper limit, a carrying capacity. Let's arbitrarily set it at twenty billion (less than sixty years from now). Let's say that we hit this number, and we are bangin our heads against the wall killing each other to keep the pop. stabilized (kinda like the failed attempts in china but far more brutal). And then, this wonderful new tech comes down the line, which is going to make life on this planet easier for everyone. With this new tech, how long do you think it would take us to go from twenty billion to twenty one billion? This is not a solution. In the very near future we are going to be facing some serious problems were the fantasy of abundance runs head long into the reality of the insatiable expansion of humanity. When people look back, the world we are living in right now is going to seem like your Venus Project's utopia, and it's going to happen very quickly.

So, your argument for this is going to be "education". We are having a problem educating seven billion people. How hard is it going to be to educate twenty billion? I mean, we better get started right now. We don't have time to wait around for this tech miracle to happen.

And then, your next argument is going to be: "these problems, that your describing, are exactly what we are waiting for, to happen, In order to implement the Venus Project". Well, you think the dominating control of the 1% (I actually subscribe to the conspiracy theories about the illuminati and the NWO) is bad now. They are preparing for this. They have been now for more than forty years. They know the science and what is coming down the line. How do you expect to rest control of the system, from them, under these circumstances?we don't have the time to be resting on our laurels, or we are going to end up living in Orwell's "1984".

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
(George Orwell)

To combat this we need to have some practical solution that can be implemented, not wishful thinking about tech miracles.

You know what? I'm not going to go over the other Venus Project quote. I'm going to let it stand for itself, since no proposals have been put forth about how to accomplish any of it, it really is nothing but a joke. let's move on.

Let's touch on "planed obsolescence" for a moment.

Car makers build cars to not last too long and try to convince us (using status derived from desire to display wealth) that we have to have new ones every couple of years. Otherwise cars would be so abundant they would go out of business very quickly.

So, let's talk about "over engineering" and "value engineering."


Value engineering (VE) is a systematic method to improve the "value" of goods or products and services by using an examination of function. Value, as defined, is the ratio of function to cost. Value can therefore be increased by either improving the function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of value engineering that basic functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing value improvements.[1]

In the United States, value engineering is specifically spelled out in Public Law 104-106, which states “Each executive agency shall establish and maintain cost-effective value engineering procedures and processes." [2]

Value engineering is sometimes taught within the project management or industrial engineering body of knowledge as a technique in which the value of a system’s outputs is optimized by crafting a mix of performance (function) and costs. In most cases this practice identifies and removes unnecessary expenditures, thereby increasing the value for the manufacturer and/or their customers.

VE follows a structured thought process that is based exclusively on "function", i.e. what something "does" not what it is. For example a screw driver that is being used to stir a can of paint has a "function" of mixing the contents of a paint can and not the original connotation of securing a screw into a screw-hole. In value engineering "functions" are always described in a two word abridgment consisting of an active verb and measurable noun (what is being done - the verb - and what it is being done to - the noun) and to do so in the most non-prescriptive way possible. In the screw driver and can of paint example, the most basic function would be "blend liquid" which is less prescriptive than "stir paint" which can be seen to limit the action (by stirring) and to limit the application (only considers paint.) This is the basis of what value engineering refers to as "function analysis".[3]

Value engineering uses rational logic (a unique "how" - "why" questioning technique) and the analysis of function to identify relationships that increase value. It is considered a quantitative method similar to the scientific method, which focuses on hypothesis-conclusion approaches to test relationships, and operations research, which uses model building to identify predictive relationships.

Value engineering is also referred to as "value management" or "value methodology" (VM), and "value analysis" (VA).[4] VE is above all a structured problem solving process based on function analysis—understanding something with such clarity that it can be described in two words, the active verb and measurable noun abridgement. For example, the function of a pencil is to "make marks". This then facilitates considering what else can make marks. From a spray can, lipstick, a diamond on glass to a stick in the sand, one can then clearly decide upon which alternative solution is most appropriate.


Overengineering (or over-engineering) is when a product is more robust or complicated than necessary for its application, either (charitably) to ensure sufficient factor of safety, sufficient functionality, or due to design errors. Overengineering is desirable when safety or performance on a particular criterion is critical, or when extremely broad functionality is required, but it is generally criticized from the point of view of value engineering as wasteful. As a design philosophy, such overcomplexity is the opposite of the less is more school of thought (and hence a violation of the KISS principle and parsimony).

Overengineering generally occurs in high-end products or specialized market criteria, and takes various forms. In one form, products are overbuilt, and have performance far in excess of needs (a family sedan that can drive at 300 km/h, or a home video cassette recorder with a projected lifespan of 100 years), and hence are more expensive, bulkier, and heavier than necessary. Alternatively, they may be overcomplicated – the design may be far more complicated than is necessary for its use, such as a modern text editor asking whether files should be saved in ASCII or EBCDIC format. Overcomplexity reduces usability of the product by the end user, and can decrease productivity of the design team due to the need to build and maintain all the features.

A related issue is market segmentation – making different products for different market segments. In this context, a particular product may be more or less suited for a particular market segment, and may be over- or under- engineered relative to an application.

Second World War German tanks are typical examples of overengineered vehicles, which made them more expensive, fewer in number, more difficult to produce and heavier than their Soviet and Allied counterparts.

Ok, now that we have gone over that, we have a better Frame of reference. When we talk about planed obsolescence, there is a "practical limiting factor", the biggest of which is advancing technology. For instance, let's take the example of the video recorder, from the wiki quote "overengineering".

home video cassette recorder with a projected lifespan of 100 years

How ridiculous does that sound? a video "cassette" recorder with a lifespan of 100 years. When was the last time you saw anyone using a cassette.  I don't know, can you even buy cassettes anymore? With the speed at which tech advances most things in our day to day lives fall into this category and have relatively short life spans, or "practical limiting factors".

Another practical limiting factor, is "practical use" (as opposed to advancing tech) for instance let's take computers for example. Computers have been around since the nineteen-forties, but didn't make a break through, into the private market until the early eighties. At that time (forties) it  took a room the size of a high-school gym worth of components to perform the calculations that a pocket calculator (smaller than a credit card) could perform today (actually, I here they are starting to attach components to house flies in order to control them remotely, huh, could you imagine: RC fly; what will they think of next).

Let's take a more relevant example for "practical use": compact discs . A fact, not all that many people know, is that the tech behind CD's was invented in 1976. back then they were called laser disks. In the very early eighties this tech tried, unsuccessfully, to break into the private market. The disks were larger than vinyl records, and the players were cumbersome. No body was interested in this tech despite its superior sound quality. So, it went away, for more than a decade. It finally had a resurgence in the mid to late nineties. The tech had been vastly improved, made more compact (hence, compact disc) and everyone flocked to it in droves, consequently, retiring cassettes from the market completely.

A similar argument can be made about high def/wide screen TV's.

So, these are the kind of things that we are dealing with when we consider most technologies. Most other technologies that fall outside this category are just fine (I know that I have had my microwave for more than ten years now and there doesn't seem to be any problems there).

 Now, I want you to answer this question honestly. When was the last time that you truly felt like you were a victim of planed obsolescence?


There are a lot of factors that are involved with this one, and I am going to try to cover them all as well as I can. Cars are somewhat of a technological anomaly in this respect. This is because, if you could make a car that could last a thousand years it would still be useful, regardless of the technology that was used to construct it. It is a transport. The only thing that matters is that it functions the way it was intended to. There are other anomalies, as well. Cars function by using high energy combustion engines, and, as per the second law of thermal dynamics, the more energy one puts into a system the more quickly it degrades. This also involves contact with the road/tires, axles, drive shafts, and any other moving components. One cannot get around this problem by switching from combustion to electric. In fact several members of my immediate family are expert car mechanics (one of my brothers has about 25 years experience and my father has about 35 years experience; before that he was a helicopter mechanic for the military for about twelve years). What my dad is saying, is that, as far as life expectancies go, so far, they are having some real problems with the electric engines burning up. Which is to be expected, as I said "second law". So, one can somewhat get around this by using exotic materials to construct a car. An example of this would be NASCAR race cars:

From an official website:

From the ground up, including the engine, a race-ready Nextel Cup car costs about $125,000 to build

Side point: Could you imagine trying to construct seven billion of these?

These cars can last a long time under some pretty heavy abuses. Imagine how long it would last if you just drove it like a regular car. You could probably literally drive one of these things your entire life, if you took proper care of it, The problem is, at 125,000 resources, sorry, I mean dollars, who can afford this.

I think that is enough on planed obsolescence. So I'm am going to wrap this up. Is there potential for abusing value engineering in the form of planed obsolescence? Yes. Is it as bad as you or the Venus Project are making it out to be? No.

Let continue on.

 By Odin good eye, I'm getting tired of writing now. I hope your still reading this.

The point I believe the venus project was making is that you only need to micromanage and worry about agonising over who gets the food and who doesn't if there is scarcity. If there is abundance, all the computer needs to do is keep the highly efficient production churning and distribution bots working.

This has pretty much already been covered. First you need to prove that there can be abundance. I don't think that it can be done, but I am open to any science or rational arguments supporting your claim.

Saying that this is exactly the same as soviet russia is not valid - there was no abundance, no automation.

That is exactly what it is. Its a flavor of marxisum. it's marxism with robots. I don't understand where this disagreement is coming from.

Sorry, but how does the current unequal distribution of wealth magically balance itself out if we entered a free market, stateless system? Don't get me wrong, Stefans alternative is great, and his logic is impeccable for what he has argued. But this is my main concern with his system that I haven't seen addressed. I've only looked at a few of his youtube vids so maybe he answers this on his site - it will take me quite a while to get through all of his material.

I'm all for the non-aggression principle, but... there is a problem. That is dealing with the legacy of past aggression. As I was saying earlier - free markets and no state are great, but not if they are from the status quo - with a few billionaires and a lot of poor people, with no way to bring about equality.

To elaborate - Is freedom just not paying taxes? Are you free if you don't pay tax, but you still work to make a firm rich while you merely survive? I would think any musings on improving the world would have to investigate how to empower, enrich, and free people. Not just firms and the 1% that currently reap disporportionate rewards for their investment of the wealth of society... wealth that has been taken from all of us over centuries through countless aggressions.

Now if workers had a stake in productive property, then I would think that is getting somewhere. Not necessarily a controlling stake in their own firm, but certainly some stake in theirs and other firms. Obviously in a free-market we would want capital to flow to where it is used most efficiently, and workers aren't likely to close their own factory when it is obsolete, hence the sub-majority stake. Would people still work hard if they have plenty of wealth in the form of productive property? If we look at business owners they work very hard precisely because they have a stake, so I say yes... possibly harder.

This arguing for equality necessitates an aggression against those currently holding the wealth. I recognise this as a fundamental contradiction of the principle of non-aggression. Is it justified as self-defence by taking back what was originally everyones; an equal share in the bounties of the world? Is it fair that we bind our children and those who follow to inequality just as we were born into it, or is the non-aggression principle absolute regardless of the negative consequences? If it is absolute, are we sure that future of inequality is the best system we can come up with?

I sorry man but I gotta rap this thing up. If you are interested in these ideas, look into the materials I suggested. Then, if you still have problems afterward, we can debate it more then.

I hope you enjoyed reading this, and I'll be looking forward to your response.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 126
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/10/2012 10:23:06 PM

Good post man. Ten thumbs up.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 127
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/11/2012 1:25:59 AM

Your aliens scenario has already been proposed, considered, and acted upon on a limited basis (united states/911/terrorism). Research "the project for a new American century", as document that was circulated among the governing elite, prior to the events of 9/11.
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 128
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/11/2012 2:08:15 AM
Thanks for that final nail in the Venus coffin. I have been looking at a lot of Stefans material and I had already concluded it was not only more feasible, but logically is the only way to go if we want a truly free society.

Though I haven't yet come across the answer to my question about what to do about addressing the inequality from previous aggressions, I think I know the answer now. There is no way to address it. Indeed, in any system there will always be inequality, but that doesn't mean you can't have a free society built on peace and virtue from now on.

I can see that some would suppose that there may be a collective action problem (Prisoner's Dilemma) with market-based ways of dealing with what the government is currently supposed to be doing, but things like charities and other donation-based services are good examples of the kinds of alternatives that are possible even though plenty of people don't donate.

So what people like us who want a better world really need to do is focus on improving parenting to increase the proportion of rational, emotionally balanced people in the population, and as each generation gets more rational and emotionally balanced the world will automatically be a better place and support for a violent state will decrease.

How do we improve parenting, when the parents that are producing irrational, unbalanced children are themselves irrational and unbalanced? How do we break the cycle of trauma and replace it with a cycle of love?
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 129
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/11/2012 1:46:32 PM

So far, we think the Amish have it right. Decentralized, agrarian, low tech communities with solid value systems.

Their society seems to leave the least carbon footprint, spreads wealth evenly, and is sustainable.

I know we might scoff, we like our gadgets and foresee a future world full of high tech wizardry ... but that may be a pipe dream.
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 130
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/11/2012 2:57:10 PM
The Amish are probably the most capable of surviving a major economic disruption or cataclysmic infrastructure meltdown. If the electrical grid is knocked down by solar flares or hackers, the Amish will go on as usual as if nothing happened.

Back in the early 70s, "The Farm", the socialistic hippy experiment in Summertown, TN. was filled to capacity by back to the land wannabes. They started "The Farm 2" a few miles away from our real farm in western Wisconsin. Even then those young urban kids were babes in the woods in trying to make it work and be sustainable for them through harsh Wisconsin winters. My dad and other local old time farmers were the go-to guys to help them learn basic farming, equipment maintenance and food growing and storage. That experiment up there only lasted 3 years before they gave up. The Farm at Summertown is still going but diversified and not truly self sufficient. I know a lot of refugees from there who had to leave the during the great exodus due to personality conflicts and philosophical differences.

As far as Americans and terrorism goes...The Amish have that right as well as twice as many Americans were killed by their own TVs and appliances last year as were from terrorism.
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 131
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/11/2012 6:54:52 PM

""The problem is most people aren't designed for that kind of life...It "could" work on paper, but existence as is shows that it won't because people like gadgets, and shooting each other over land and having wealth incumbency, etc.""

Be that as it may, the Amish work in real life, not just on paper.

""Which means... the only way to make everyone Amish is to A) remove free will from the equation, or B) Fascist Dictatorship and Genocide... and what's worse, that applies to any solution that isn't universally embraced by human kind, and since people don't like to agree very much, I'm going to go out and say humans don't want utopia. They want "their" version of Utopia.""

Never crossed my mind to make everyone Amish, a ridiculous idea. We're not looking for utopia here, just a social and economic and political system that is non-suicidal and sustainable because we are committing suicide as a species. It's about just plain survival, not utopia.
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 132
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/12/2012 3:36:28 PM
''A very noble cause... but did you ever stop to consider that maybe humanity, as a whole, doesn't want that? There's a pretty good chunk of evidence that shows humanity kind of likes destroying itself, historically speaking.''

Granted that humanity has suicidal tendencies and is on a suicidal path, that has already been noted.

""Even if you have the answer (Being Amish or anything else) you're going to have to make it appealing to the people hell bent on killing and destroying each other, as well as those with wealth incumbency and pretty much all the people that have every reason to oppose it.""

I don't have to make anything appealing to anyone. Not selling Amish here.

""While it's a valid mental exercise, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page in understanding the new world order isn't going to come about from this thread...""

News? Details at 11?
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 133
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/12/2012 4:45:11 PM
Nobody is selling Amish. They can't do it because of lack of horse-powered internet connections. They do tend to use the pay phone across the street to do their business ventures though, by-passing certain restrictions. And they also tend to be a bunch of misogynistic azzwipes when it comes down to that. Not perfect by any means, but just another model of a semblence of sustainability as a community. I love their cheese curds and jams, but the last time I bought some from a vendor in town, his hands were rather unsanitary from horse dung and who the hell knows what. That is why we need standards, watchdogs, and a sense of community well being through standards.

Despite their short failings, and that of many alternative communities, the larger community that relies on liquidation, boom-bust, "I got mine" mentality, "I am too priviledged and lazy to make a change" folks, the alt-lifestyle folks at least are trying and being mindful. I went private solar after hearing the tales of woe and terrorism from folks in the coal fields. Here, 60% of the power comes from mountain top removal, followed by nuke plants and the environmental terrorism that supports in the mining, production, and non-disposal storage that entails. The nukes also heat the river to extremes where the plants have to shut down at times to prevent a river holocaust. To me that is rather irresponsible given the values I was raised with. Solar made sense, is affordable, active solar heats and cools, and conservation and efficiency is merely mindfulness and has little sacrifice involved. I just prefer not to be one who shats upon the world of the kiddos I love and respect. Taint rocket science. Just takes a bit of thinking, creativity, conservation, living within a budget, and a desire not to crap on future generation and other species that have just as much a right to share our space, and who may be our salvation and ship-mates to the stars one day. ya never know.
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 134
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/14/2012 3:40:10 PM
""and a desire not to crap on future generation and other species that have just as much a right to share our space, and who may be our salvation and ship-mates to the stars one day. ya never know.""

I certainly hope the answer won't be to escape to "the stars" in the future. That would really take the unsustainable cake!
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 135
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 6/22/2012 2:48:14 AM

What are some answers that provide a political and economic system that fosters equality, spreads health and wealth, preserves the earth and keeps population growth in check?

Destroy the cities and go back to living in villages of about 100 people; live sustainably, taking only the resources needed for food, shelter & clothing. The rewards are happily in harmony with nature and your fellow man, enjoying the closeness of your friends & family, and knowing your place in this wonderful universe. We really don't need all that plastic sh!t the crooked corporations try to sell us anyway.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 136
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 7/18/2012 8:17:59 AM

If you are interested in entering the debate about the Venus Project, contained in this thread, you need to respond to specific statements. I would also suggest that you review the material on anarcho-capitalism that I have provided.

As it is, I am unable to respond to what you have written above.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 137
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 7/18/2012 9:10:10 AM

And why are you unable to respond to what I have written?

Because your statements have no context within the debate as it exists at this point.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 138
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 7/18/2012 9:21:40 AM

And if you can point me to all these specific points and I will address them as best I can. :)

I have already done so. Read the debate, review the materials that I suggest. I see no need to repeat myself.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 139
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 7/18/2012 9:38:32 AM

I was responding to the most recent post so I think it would be relevant.

Ah I see. Sience it was my comment that lead you to this thread in the first place, I assumed you would be responding to the debate I was referring you to.

If that is your rationalle, then every single comment on this thread that is a response to the last comment they see is automatically irrelevant. If you would like me to spend all day reaing through the entire thread and mount a response to every single comment made then I don't think that's reasonable. Thats why I've agreed to compromise with you and address these "specific points" you have mentioned. So bring em on. :)

So I guess I'll be repeating myself after all.

Taken from "The Zeitgeist Movement" thread:

There has just recently been a discussion about the matter, which is probably why no one is answering you, everyone is probably disinterested in the subject.

You can find this discussion on thread page #3 in the "what would a perfect world look like" thread, linked below.

<a href=""></a>

The discussion consists of the following posts:

90, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 127, 128, 129, 160, 161, 162, 166.

Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 140
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 7/18/2012 10:19:37 AM

Now, if you can refine and condense your core arguments against the train of thought that arrives at an RBE, not anything about TVP, I'm not affiliated with them, and present them, I will address them.

Ok, setting aside the numerous points on the subject, that I have already made, at the moment sacristy is a fact. How do you propose to move from scarcity to abundance? And please, do take into accout that we are talking about providing equaly for more than seven billion people.
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 141
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 7/18/2012 11:40:23 AM
That's a fair enough point, and I notice you made one similar to this early on in the thread. Essentially saying "That's all well and good, but how does that help us NOW?" I can empathise with the frustration and impatience you may or may not be feeling.

What?!?! I have made no such statements. I have, infact, argued that abundance cannot be achived while retaining the current state of advanced technology.

I have not read the rest of your post and quite honestly I am not sure that I want to. You have criticized me as, making no relevant points, in what I have witten (which couldn't be further from the truth), you have down played me as nothing more than a Stephan groupie, when most of my arguments have nothing to do with Stefan's ideas at all, and you have wined about the lingth of my posts, stating that there is to much to read and respond to, oh, woe is me, and you seem to insist on aproaching the discussion with me as though I were a child - not to mention name dropping, like I care, to put it a PG level for this forum. This all smacks of dishonesty in the extreme. Unless you are willing to respond to the points I have already made in this thread, about the infeasiblity of archiving abundance then I am through with you.
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 142
view profile
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 12/29/2012 3:25:56 PM
What would a perfect world look like?

this one, with better weather, and not a single jerk in it.....or at least a perfect way to deal with said jerk.

and also no death and other bad things, of course.
Joined: 10/21/2011
Msg: 143
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 12/31/2012 5:21:17 AM
A perfect world would require humanity to embrace a hive mentality where humanity as a whole would be the 'queen bee'. The social element would need to have been perfected in that we all follow the same set of morals with little to no deviation. In this case family wouldn't be so 'personal' as it is now. You'd still have what you'd call your immediate family but what we refer to as strangers now would be considered part of the 'family tree'. All of the adults would become the parents or more appropriately, the teachers. This way responsibility would fall on humanity as a whole. The rest would fall in place.

Too bad it's never going to happen.
Joined: 8/25/2012
Msg: 144
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 3/18/2013 2:51:25 PM
No sorrow, sadness or pain, plenty of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. A perfect world is in the perception of each individual. At anytime, there are those that think they live in a perfect world and those who fantasize of a perfect world. No two people will ever agree 100% on a perfect place and individual interpretations vary from time to time. That is why the world is about as perfect as possible. Hitler wanted a perfect race, of course, the perfect race would have lived in an imperfect world. I can not imagine anything more boring than a uniformly structured perfect world.
Joined: 6/9/2009
Msg: 145
What would a perfect world look like?
Posted: 3/21/2013 4:04:26 PM
Change from a profit driven system to a resource driven system . Some will state we are in a resource driven society but we are not. We are in a system where there is manufactured scarcity in order to maximize profits. As long as everything is profit driven , nothing will be done to fix the mess that the profit driven society has created . War , pollution ,human rights , are all profit driven . Figure it would cost 40 billion a year to provide people in poverty worldwide with basic human needs ,but there is no profit , hence , let them starve .While 1% owns 40% of everything , pretty disgusting .
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What would a perfect world look like?