# Piracy is not the problem. Money is.



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

As I lurk and peruse these forums and many others, I see a sense of transgression pervading the discussion of so-called "pirated" digital materials. Justifications and guilt-ridden truisms dominate the conversation when it comes to downloading and/or using illegally obtained software. Statements such as "The company deserved it!", "I'm only using this as evaluation, THEN I'll buy it.", or, my personal favorite, "It's too expensive." belie a lack of understanding of technology and how it changes the game for humanity. It is also a symptom of the disease which infects and grips our world like a cancerous tumor with a trillion writhing, outstretched tentacles, squeezing our world out of every last drop of it's vitality.

For you see, my friends, the free use of technology as we see fit is not the problem. Money is.

Some clarification before I go on; I'm using "money" as shorthand for "any system of resource distribution which relies on the use of scarcity "value". This includes capitalism, communism, and any sort of barter system. It doesn't even matter whether it's fiat or "silver/gold standard". Any system at all that uses the scarcity of an item relative to the desire for it as "value" is fundamentally flawed, yet almost entirely unquestioned. A disclaimer, as well; this isn't to say it wasn't, at one point, a useful invention. It is simply irrelevant given our current level of technology and what we have been able to do as a society for nearly a century.

That being said, allow me to make my case. What we are seeing in the phenomenon of so-called digital "piracy" is a conflict between money's desire to keep products scarce (therefore still in demand), and technology's capacity to reproduce a given work of art or piece of information nearly instantly and without end. Replication machines are the source of modern abundance in whatever form they take, be it automated factories or information processing computers.

Copyright laws are put in place as a means of restricting this abundance when it comes to software and many other forms of information. They are seen as fair and just by their makers; and why shouldn't they be? After all, they continue to allow people who create content to be rewarded by the monetary system so that they do not starve, so they may continue to create their content. We all appreciate creators, don't we? We are grateful that they made what we play. We are SO grateful, that we are willing to take away a piece of our livelihood and give it to them that they may prosper.

This logic, however, is a failure from the beginning. Not in that we are grateful, not in that we respect them; it is in assuming that money is still relevant to our goals, and that it is an institution which needs to continue to exist, even if that means making laws which give it life support in a technological environment that is deeply hostile to it's sustainability. When we continue to give credence to an existing system over the capacity to do better, we abandon rational thought and embrace absent-minded tradition.

Tell me; what is wrong with us as a society, as a species capable of higher thought, when we tell ourselves that it is immoral to copy an infinitely replicable piece of data given the state of technology, yet entirely moral to continue to uphold a system which produces wars, creates famine and poverty, denies the use of healthcare to those who are both sick and impoverished, and crushes the discovery of science and production of technology, among many other horrific systemic failures? What is WRONG with us when we ignore better solutions to focus on temporary fixes?

Here at the temp, and in many places around the web, we HAVE done better. We HAVE created homebrew of high quality. We HAVE opened the gate to a peek at what our technology would be like if money did not get in the way. Whenever you turn on your DS and open your flashcart to look at the backups you have on your card, that massive list of software that represents human achievement in the arts, you are peeking into the realm of possibility, of capacity realized when money has (almost) nothing to say about it. What you are looking at is freedom. REAL freedom. You are getting but a small taste.

The guilt that you feel when you "pirate" something is the guilt of the slave afraid to leave his/her chains. The guilt of the runaway slave worker who fears that his/her fellow human property will be flogged because of his/her disappearance. Your empathy, though well meant, is entirely misplaced. Your chains are not of steel; they are of paper. Your locks are not the locks of metal; they are price tags. And make no mistake; they hold us ALL, from poorest street urchin to richest CEO.

I do NOT blame the individual; there is nothing any one of us can do. We can talk, we can develop, we can try...but in the end, we can only not let this hold us back. We do not need to feel guilty about defying money. It is not immoral. It is the right thing to do, to tug on these chains until our fellow man feels the tug and realizes he is confined, though he may blame you before he blames the chains.

If any of you are interested in a better, more scientific and systems theory oriented solution to our problems as a species, please feel free to check the link in my signature.

To the temp! To logic! To technological freedom!


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 28, 2013)

Well this is one of the more unique ways I've seen of people trying to justify piracy.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

pyromaniac123 said:


> tl:dr


 
Don't you think that demanding that the answers to complex subjects be condensed into bite-sized pieces of information robs you of your ability to understand them fully or with any depth? (No offense.)


----------



## Veho (Apr 28, 2013)

I wonder why you felt the need to include piracy into it, since the topic isn't about it and works perfectly fine without having to drag piracy into it. Is it to lure people into the thread? Provoke a reaction?


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

It's just an aspect of the disease that people here would readily recognize, Veho.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (Apr 28, 2013)

Veho said:


> I wonder why you felt the need to include piracy into it, since the topic isn't about it and works perfectly fine without having to drag piracy into it. Is it to lure people into the thread? Provoke a reaction?


 
Its all down to marketing


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

soulx said:


> Well this is one of the more unique ways I've seen of people trying to justify piracy.


 
Allow me to ask you something, Soulx. In your mind, is it impossible to "justify" piracy, regardless of the evidence and/or logic presented?

To clarify, I am not saying that that is what you have implied, nor am I asking a rhetorical question. (To me, the only stupid question is a rhetorical one. So I don't ask rhetorical questions.)


----------



## xist (Apr 28, 2013)

Wow, talk about misguided. Seems your argument would have the world devolve into fighting each other for commodities. And if those commodities aren't physical then whoever put the effort in to create them has to lose out.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

....Sorry, xist, did you check the link in my signature? The one that says, "We need to move past monetary concerns."? That's what my argument is leading towards, and it's nothing at all like what you describe.

Edit: I also suggest that anyone who checks the link would also watch the video on the front page. It will help you understand the subject in much greater depth.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Apr 28, 2013)

Games are expensive.


----------



## xist (Apr 28, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> ....Sorry, xist, did you check the link in my signature? The one that says, "We need to move past monetary concerns."? That's what my argument is leading towards, and it's nothing at all like what you describe.


 
It's laughable that something like that would actually gain momentum. People are by their very nature unable to exist in the equilibrium described and to believe otherwise is somewhat naive. Whilst i agree it'd be lovely to live in a Star Trek style utopian society it's an impossibility.

Society needs different levels of responsibility and commitment and after a while that burden requires some reason to continue doing it. Without some form of recompense then everything falls apart.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> ....Sorry, xist, did you check the link in my signature? The one that says, "We need to move past monetary concerns."? That's what my argument is leading towards, and it's nothing at all like what you describe.


Sounds quite Hippie and Utopian, not to mention unrealistic. Money by itself isn't really worth anything - people invented money so that they can exchange goods using a universal exchange ratio which they called currency. Would you really like to return to the good old days of exchanging two chickens for a goat or would you prefer sharing everything in a socialist-cross-communist fashion which as we all know always works out great?


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4, I will address your concern in two ways.

One, it is clear you didn't real the whole thing fully. I mentioned in the third paragraph that I was using money as shorthand for anything that uses scarcity value, including barter systems.

Secondly, and this is something that xist will need to read as well, there is an ocean of difference between utopian idealism and systems theory, though they can seem quite similar, much like how technological development and speculation are vastly different, but appear similar on the surface. Utopianism merely states that everyone will get along just fine and everything will be perfect. Systems theory, on the other hand, works scientifically to build a system from the ground up using what we know. It is essentially a technological application of our knowledge, in place of a vastly arbitrary and thoughtless mechanic.

Is it perfect? Of course not, but neither is our understanding of the universe. It is, however, the best we can do, and the best at doing the best we can do, through continued improvement and evolution. A society that changes as our knowledge changes. Emergent, if you will.

At one point in history, it would have been laughable to conceive of a democracy. "How can one have a kingdom without a king? Who will tell them what to do? People just won't be motivated anymore." The answer to what will motivate us is the same now as it was then; a need to survive. The real difference is, given the actual measurement of our very finite resources and the rate at which we deplete them, we will do so with a great deal more precision.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Sounds quite Hippie and Utopian, not to mention unrealistic. Money by itself isn't really worth anything - people invented money so that they can exchange goods using a universal exchange ratio which they called currency. Would you really like to return to the good old days of exchanging two chickens for a goat or would you prefer sharing everything in a socialist-cross-communist fashion which as we all know always works out great?


 
Currently right now, we depend on money. We spent a few centuries training people that in order to get something you need money. If we did away with money, not many people would know how to adapt and survive; people don't know how to hunt, farm, or have basic survival instincts.

You want to know what survival instincts are in America? Welfare and begging; it's like the ability to naturally sustain life has vanished.

What is the problem with Money? It's a form of control. How much money do you have right now? Whatever it is, it's a laughable amount to the people who control it. There are people making money so fast right now without having to form an eye brow sweat. I have a friend who has a mother who owns 10+ properties and is renting them out to make enough money to buy another one, rinse and repeat. She has so many connections to do virtually anything she wanted to.

The top 2% of people can virtually buyout what we need to survive and have enough money to hide their tracks. While it may never be this extreme, money is the essence of power and we have seen so much implicit evidence of people with large amounts of money influencing society today.

However, we have now reached a breaking point in human population. Can we go back to everyone having farms and be self sustaining? The answer is no. The human population is so large, that it's impossible to have your own land where you can have the resources to sustain life. Does this mean we are screwed? The answer is still no, the richest have got it figured. The average middle class person may believe that all life is equal but they refuse to face the problem of the effects of overpopulation. While it's certainly nice that everyone can be happy; we may eventually reach a point where this is not possible. Already we are seeing countries where the population is so destitute that there is little hope. However, the richest realize that not everyone can be happy and they have their own little circle of trust to keep happy and everyone else is not fit to survive.

What the fuck did I just type?


----------



## Black-Ice (Apr 28, 2013)

Abolish money.
/Thread


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> _*Snip!*_


There will always be more and less wealthy individuals - that's how society works. Before currency, the posession of land was the scale of wealth and it was a source of control just as much as money is today as the owner of the land in the feudal system practically _"owned"_ its inhabitants. In the event of a total colapse of the world we currently live in, food and water will take over the role of money as they're the bare essentials and with no economy to speak of, money would lose all of its _"worth"_, so to speak.

Instruments of power and control have existed since the beginning of our race, societies we live in have a very much hierarchal structure and looking upon it critically is going againts your own nature - you just have to look at the big picture to realize that.


----------



## Shoat (Apr 28, 2013)

soulx said:


> Well this is one of the more unique ways I've seen of people trying to justify piracy.




He has a point.
The resources that humanity as a whole has availalbe are probably more than enough to ensure no one has to starve ever again and maybe even to provide free healthcare all around the globe. Not being restricted by money would also advance science, not to mention that the most common cause of both small-scale crimes and even wars would be gone if money didn't exist anymore.
You have to remember that all of the modern world is being managed (somehow) while a large portion of the money that exists sits idle on some rich fuckers' bank accounts doing nothing, imagine those resources weren't wasted.

The main problem with removing money in favor of a globally fair system is that the vast majority of the people who are in power around the world are driven by lower motives (namely greed) and would walk over corpses to ensure their luxury life.

A utopian dream like this can only ever happen if we can artifically fix our genetic code and remove greed, hate, envy and such things from the personalities of all humans (ala Fringe) or forcefully banish everyone with such personality-traits from the planet. As long as there is even one asshole in the world who would steal (be it by force or by "selling with profit") from others even though he already has enough, this would not work.

I'm still wondering to this day how Star Trek's Federation managed that leap from money to utopia.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> Currently right now, we depend on money. We spent a few centuries training people that in order to get something you need money. If we did away with money, not many people would know how to adapt and survive; people don't know how to hunt, farm, or have basic survival instincts.
> 
> You want to know what survival instincts are in America? Welfare and begging; it's like the ability to naturally sustain life has vanished.
> 
> ...


 

My reply to you, Zetta, would be that even the richest people on Earth are enslaved to money, even if it is less so. They are hurt as much as we are when science is hampered by their need for a "budget". Every time an art project is shut down or a scientific breakthrough is cancelled for a more profitable project, even the richest suffer from the lack of diversity. Given that even our best technology must be funded, and subsequently sold, the phenomena of "planned obsolescence" repeatedly causes devices to be short lived.

In other words, the rich have almost as much to gain from such a transition as the poor do. Not to mention that we are a finite planet with finite resources; no matter how much money you have, if there is no material left to replace that which we have needlessly wasted in the name of money, you're still going to starve. Or die of global warming.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> There will always be more and less wealthy individuals - that's how society works. Before currency, the posession of land was the scale of wealth and it was a source of control just as much as money is today as the owner of the land in the feudal system practically _"owned"_ its inhabitants. In the event of a total colapse of the world we currently live in, food and water will take over the role of money as they're the bare essentials and with no economy to speak of, money would lose all of its _"worth"_, so to speak.
> 
> Instruments of power and control have existed since the beginning of our race, societies we live in have a very much hierarchal structure and looking upon it critically is going againts your own nature - you just have to look at the big picture to realize that.


 
Au contraire, mon ami; that is how society HAS worked. There is no evidence to suggest that it is how society MUST work.

In fact, allow me to link a rather interesting video about what motivational science has learned about behavior.



Edit: Whoops! Sorry for the double post.


----------



## xist (Apr 28, 2013)

Systems Theory relies upon self-regulation. Humanity will never be homogeneous enough to self regulate...therefore if that's the whole principle behind the argument it's inherently flawed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Shoat said:


> He has a point.
> The resources that humanity as a whole has availalbe are probably more than enough to ensure no one has to starve ever again and maybe even to provide free healthcare all around the globe. Not being restricted by money would also advance science, not to mention that the most common cause of both small-scale crimes and even wars would be gone if money didn't exist anymore.


Since when can you spend something finite infinitely? The resources we have right now will _not_ last forever.



> You have to remember that all of the modern world is being managed (somehow) while a large portion of the money that exists sits idle on some rich fuckers' bank accounts doing nothing, imagine those resources weren't wasted.


Oh, you wish it was that simple. The money that _"sits idle in a bank"_ is continuously moved from hand to hand on the stock market by the bank itself - companies lose and gain money and support via this so-called _"idle"_ money - how else do you think banks have the money to pay all their employees, to uphold the entire banking infrastructure, to pay monthly/yearly income to account holders? Half of our economy sits tightly and comfortably on the money that you think is unused - the only money which is out of the loop is the money inside federal reserves.



> The main problem with removing money in favor of a globally fair system is that the vast majority of the people who are in power around the world are driven by lower motives (namely greed) and would walk over corpses to ensure their luxury life.


The main problem with removing money in favour of a globally fair system is that it doesn't work and it has been attempted of a few occasions in the past. Humans are not happy if they all have the same posessions - we as individuals always attempt to have something our neighbour doesn't, it has always been like this and it always will be.



> A utopian dream like this can only ever happen if we can artifically fix our genetic code and remove greed, hate, envy and such things from the personalities of all humans (ala Fringe) or forcefully banish everyone with such personality-traits from the planet. As long as there is even one asshole in the world who would steal (be it by force or by "selling with profit") from others even though he already has enough, this would not work.


Ergo this will not work at all as greed, hate, envy and such are essential parts of what makes us human in the first place. To get rid of a part of our emotions would be to get rid of a part of our humanity.



xist said:


> Systems Theory relies upon self-regulation. Humanity will never be homogeneous enough to self regulate...therefore if that's the whole principle behind the argument it's inherently flawed.


Exactly. Communism and Socialism work great on paper as well, but I am yet to see a single nation work effectively according to the guidelines of those systems.
The world is not perfect, and we as humans are flawed as well - we're incapable of creating a universally fair system _-_ we're simply too different and it's those differences that make us human. This is why Democracy has proven to be the best of all political systems as it always caters to the majority of the voters - if you cannot make everyone happy, at least make the majority happy - this makes sense and this _works_.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> There will always be more and less wealthy individuals - that's how society works. Before currency, the posession of land was the scale of wealth and it was a source of control just as much as money is today as the owner of the land in the feudal system practically _"owned"_ its inhabitants. In the event of a total colapse of the world we currently live in, food and water will take over the role of money as they're the bare essentials and with no economy to speak of, money would lose all of its _"worth"_, so to speak.
> 
> Instruments of power and control have existed since the beginning of our race, societies we live in have a very much hierarchal structure and looking upon it critically is going againts your own nature - you just have to look at the big picture to realize that.


 

We both agree that there will always be more and less wealthy individuals. I wasn't necessarily saying money is the only way for control, although I did emphasize how much money is a form of control, I was implying that because of money, we have lost all of our abilities to sustain life. For the average person, the only viable way to continue living is to make money; this is what I was attacking.

My main point was to show how over the centuries, we have gone from an independent well sustaining species to a totally dependent lack of survival instincts species primarily because of money. What supports this is that money is a universal answer to everything, the only thing you need is money. So my main point was not just specific to money, it's anything that can be classified as a universal form of well being.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> We both agree that there will always be more and less wealthy individuals. I wasn't necessarily saying money is the only way for control, although I did emphasize how much money is a form of control, I was implying that because of money, we have lost all of our abilities to sustain life. For the average person, the only viable way to continue living is to make money; this is what I was attacking.
> 
> My main point was to show how over the centuries, we have gone from an independent well sustaining species to a totally dependent lack of survival instincts species primarily because of money. What supports this is that money is a universal answer to everything, the only thing you need is money. So my main point was not just specific to money, it's anything that can be classified as a universal form of well being.


This is where we disagree though - there wasn't a single moment in the history of mankind when the individual was self-reliant, not even in the stone age. We were never self-reliant as individuals - we were self-reliant as a species. We lived and live in groups in which each individual has their duties. Even cavemen didn't perform the exact same duties - there were hunters, there were gatherers, there were those who never left the cave, dealing with the fabrication of the spoils of hunting and gathering instead.

What you blame on money, you should be blaming on the emergence of professions. You assume that _"way back then"_ everyone was a farmer and that's not true - for the sake of convenience, humans began to specialize in different professions and traded with each other - there were farmers, there were blacksmiths, there were carpenters and so on and so forth. Why? Because it's much easier to specialize in one narrow discipline than to perform each and every duty on your own. Not only that, a narrow specialization allows for rapid progress.

The choice was _"do everything in a mediocre fashion due to time and space constraints"_ or _"specialize, trade whatever you produce with others and thus possess items of higher value"_. This is how economy was born and money was merely invented to facilitate trading of goods.

The difference between _"now"_ and _"in the past"_ is that the _"group"_ of individuals connected with each other grew from a family unit through tribe to society - the underlying mechanism is the same.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

xist said:


> Systems Theory relies upon self-regulation. Humanity will never be homogeneous enough to self regulate...therefore if that's the whole principle behind the argument it's inherently flawed.


 
A few points here. One, we are already self-regulating. If you'll notice, the world around us is not in complete chaos. We have attempted (and have succeeded AND failed) to create a stable, working society. Problem is, it's fragmented and has never really even attempted to build something stable on a global scale, to my knowledge. And certainly, we have never actually removed the monetary component from a society, replacing it with a resource based economy, and watched how it went from there.

Second, not ALL systems theory relies on self-regulation. In a sense, the Venus Project does, but it does so in a very clever way. By utilizing our technological know-how, we would not place a human in charge of calculation and distribution, but rather, an open-source AI that arrives at decisions based on needs and available resources, thus creating a "true" democracy in which every person who contributes must necessarily be educated enough to program, and contributes by making tweaks to the calculation that provide greater computational efficiency. Which brings me to my point about greed.

Greed is the desire to have more. Given, however, a system which gives to everyone equally, how would one _express_ greed? I would say it is in much the same way that someone who develops technology wants that technology to exist. Let's say that someone wants to be able to use more gas. In this society, they would produce a means to create greater fuel efficiency, or perhaps discover an alternative source of fuel. The desires of people, after all, are driven by the state of technology. For example, if your house is dirty, would you rather have a whole lot of brooms, or a self-cleaning house?

Foxi, I would also like you to provide examples of when this sort of thing has been tried globally, and with an alternative to a monetary system. I may be errant on my history here, but I don't recall the formation of a new world order.

Edit: Oh, yes, one more thing. This whole "human nature" thing comes up all the time. But I recommend you watch all of the video on that website called "Paradise or Oblivion". It addresses this at length, and watching it would mean that you would ask much less redundant questions, instead asking questions about things the video didn't answer.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 28, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> My reply to you, Zetta, would be that even the richest people on Earth are enslaved to money, even if it is less so. They are hurt as much as we are when science is hampered by their need for a "budget". Every time an art project is shut down or a scientific breakthrough is cancelled for a more profitable project, even the richest suffer from the lack of diversity. Given that even our best technology must be funded, and subsequently sold, the phenomena of "planned obsolescence" repeatedly causes devices to be short lived.
> 
> In other words, the rich have almost as much to gain from such a transition as the poor do. Not to mention that we are a finite planet with finite resources; no matter how much money you have, if there is no material left to replace that which we have needlessly wasted in the name of money, you're still going to starve. Or die of global warming.


 
Definitely agreed; one other thing I wanted to criticize about money (that I felt I didn't emphasize enough) that having tons of money exponentiates the probability of earning more money. For example, the person I mentioned having 10+ properties that is making so much money to the point where it won't be a concern for their life: if a house that looks like a good deal is on the market, with higher probability someone like them would buy it. Not only that, but in general, good opportunities (that are not unique) are with higher probability going to be utilized by the rich. While I think it's possible for something unique to happen and for the poor to utilize to make money, the probability of this happening is excruciating low. 

As Foxi said, there are many forms of control, but money being a universal solution is one of the few things that has the above property. Other forms of control like resources such as land don't necessarily exhibit the above property. You can't make an abundance amount of land without penalties. Land is much less flexible, which is probably why we moved away from the concept.

Money is the evolution of control. People found much easier ways to find control, money was the answer.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Apr 28, 2013)

And also , we steal cause we can.


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> This is where we disagree though - there wasn't a single moment in the history of mankind when the individual was self-reliant, not even in the stone age. We were never self-reliant as individuals - we were self-reliant as a species. We lived and live in groups in which each individual has their duties. Even cavemen didn't perform the exact same duties - there were hunters, there were gatherers, there were those who never left the cave, dealing with the fabrication of the spoils of hunting and gathering instead.


 
This passage made me fart with so much force that my nose bled.

Are you saying it's not possible to be self reliant or we prefer not to be?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Since when can you spend something finite infinitely? The resources we have right now will _not_ last forever.


But they'll probably last through my lifetime, so I don't need to worry about it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> Are you saying it's not possible to be self reliant or we prefer not to be?


We originally chose not to for convenience' sake and now, due to technology, we are unable to be self-reliant while retaining the same comfort of life even if we wanted to. It's not a matter of whether we use money or not though, it is our achievements that make us unable to be entirely self-reliant without sacrificing a lot.


----------



## xist (Apr 28, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> A few points here. One, we are already self-regulating. If you'll notice, the world around us is not in complete chaos. We have attempted (and have succeeded AND failed) to create a stable, working society. Problem is, it's fragmented and has never really even attempted to build something stable on a global scale, to my knowledge. And certainly, we have never actually removed the monetary component from a society, replacing it with a resource based economy, and watched how it went from there.


 
But we self-regulate based upon principles which can be broken down into the basic "more, more, more" philosophy, which doesn't work here. Additionally where is the motivation for people to succeed? What happens to those who simply take and not contribute?


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

I can see you didn't read the rest of the post, xist. That's really a rather bad habit that won't move the conversation along.



Wolvenreign said:


> Second, not ALL systems theory relies on self-regulation. In a sense, the Venus Project does, but it does so in a very clever way. By utilizing our technological know-how, we would not place a human in charge of calculation and distribution, but rather, an open-source AI that arrives at decisions based on needs and available resources, thus creating a "true" democracy in which every person who contributes must necessarily be educated enough to program, and contributes by making tweaks to the calculation that provide greater computational efficiency. Which brings me to my point about greed.
> 
> Greed is the desire to have more. Given, however, a system which gives to everyone equally, how would one _express_ greed? I would say it is in much the same way that someone who develops technology wants that technology to exist. Let's say that someone wants to be able to use more gas. In this society, they would produce a means to create greater fuel efficiency, or perhaps discover an alternative source of fuel. The desires of people, after all, are driven by the state of technology. For example, if your house is dirty, would you rather have a whole lot of brooms, or a self-cleaning house?



Edit: In addition, I recommend that you watch that video I posted on motivation. It has quite a lot of good information, specifically in how it is highly unlikely that any human, given a lack of constraint on one's resources, would do nothing.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Apr 28, 2013)

xist said:


> What happens to those who simply take and not contribute?


That's ridiculous.  Nobody is lazy!  Nobody has ever cheated the system!  I suppose next you'll be telling us we don't live in a utopian society!

Oh xist, the crazy things you come up with!


----------



## Shoat (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Since when can you spend something finite infinitely? The resources we have right now will _not_ last forever.


 
"Resources", in this case, are global production. Food is produced continuously. It is not finite, people won't stop producing food tomorrow.
My point is that we produce enough for all of humanity and that it's distributed in a retarded way because of greed. 
Half the world suffers from starvation, disease and war. Humanity should have progressed past such a pitiful state of affairs by now, but it hasn't because of the greed the few.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

Understanding what creates laziness and cheating, and applying it to the system as a whole, is what The Venus Project is all about. The application of knowledge on a global scale. We ask questions, and then do our best to answer them. It is fundamentally how science works, and how we solve the problems that we come up with. We certainly don't just wave money at it until it goes away. By the way, the phenomena of cheating has been observed to be largely motivated by money.



Shoat said:


> "Resources", in this case, are global production. Food is produced continuously. It is not finite, people won't stop producing food tomorrow.
> My point is that we produce enough for all of humanity and that it's distributed in a retarded way because of greed.
> Half the world suffers from starvation, disease and war. Humanity should have progressed past such a pitiful state of affairs by now, but it hasn't because of the greed the few.


 
I would disagree with you, Shoat, on the cause. In this case, "Don't hate the playa. Hate the game." It isn't greed which causes the retarded system of distribution, it's what causes greed in the first place, an obselete failure of a so-called "system".


----------



## Zetta_x (Apr 28, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> We originally chose not to for convenience's sake and now, due to technology, we are unable to be self-reliant while retaining the same comfort of life even if we wanted to. It's not a matter of whether we use money or not though, it is our achievements that make us unable to be entirely self-reliant without sacrificing a lot.


 
That's what I meant: we were once capable and now we lost the ability I was just painting it with a "hunter-gatherer" type picture. Yes as technology advanced we have become way much less reliant while retaining the same comfort of life. However, technology is only one of the many key reasons why this is the cause. One reason is the world population. We have this ideology that everyone needs to be somewhat happy. As long as everyone is somewhat happy, then who cares if there are people who are insanely rich with power. However, as world population increases, it's no longer feasible to keep everyone happy yet we still pretend we can and absolutely do nothing to prepare when we can't.

Sometimes people die, it's sad, we all know. However, we are willing to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to keep people alive for a week or so. Since money directly correlates with resources, we can see that because of our ideology, we are probably not allocating reso


----


I literally just stopped typing. Many of the temps do not know this, but I participate in discussions for no reason whatsoever. I often take controversial stances because I know it keeps the discussion for going on longer. When I'm trying to procrastinate it's absolutely the best thing to do. I don't think and form clear arguments. I type what's currently on my mind at the given time. Often, what I type has holes not because I can't form a clear argument, but it's because I'm doing this to kill time and I could care less about the discussion.

However, the way my mind works, I often reach corners of an argument that people don't see. So I like contributing in some way but when it's a back and forth battle it gets boring so fast mainly because I don't have any motivation to talk about (other to kill time).

The way my mind works is that what's currently in my thoughts at this current time vanishes. I often can't remember what I thought 10 minutes ago. It's a chain of thoughts that keep the ideas flowing. I've pretty much hit a dull moment and I forgot everything I was thinking about on the topic. So continue posting (and for careful people who comprehend what I put) will call for finding tons of holes. Does this mean I'm retarded? Semily, I'm actually a Ph.D. student in Statistics. I receive outstanding grades and when I'm working on any job, I complete it with outstanding remarks. In my last 5-6 years of employment of random things, I have often been acknowledged for outstanding performances. Politics, religion, and other things are highly controversial which is why I participate in them. I have aspergers.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Apr 28, 2013)

I love how the video at the start says "Paradise or Oblivion" like those are the only two options.

Anyway, this sounds a lot like communism.  And we all know how well that worked out.


----------



## xist (Apr 28, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> I can see you didn't read the rest of the post, xist. That's really a rather bad habit that won't move the conversation along.


 
I can't really watch video's on my connection - both speed and bandwidth caps limit my choices.

Additionally i read the message but must have missed (apparently twice now) the part which elucidates the reasoning behind people who don't contribute impacting upon the system. It's very easily demonstrable that many people opt out of contributing...and i'd wager if incentives to succeed were removed many more would.

Edit- assuming i'm a lazy so and so i just program the AI to let me do nothing and be rewarded for it. When other people see me lazing about they do the same (with no penalty). Cue downward spiral.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Shoat said:


> "Resources", in this case, are global production. Food is produced continuously. It is not finite, people won't stop producing food tomorrow.


Why would people produce anything if the system they live in guaranteed that they will be fed regardless of whether or not they put any effort into anything at all? There is no driving force here to make people work for the common good_._


As xist said:


xist said:


> Additionally i read the message but must have missed (apparently twice now) the part which elucidates the reasoning behind people who don't contribute impacting upon the system. It's very easily demonstrable that many people opt out of contributing...and i'd wager if incentives to succeed were removed many more would.


Look at the sheer amount of people living exclusively on welfare and government benefits - it's not even funny. Humans as a species are naturally inclined towards laziness and as such, when we work, we work towards allowing ourselves to be more lazy in the future - this is how we came up with tools and machines which greatly simplified otherwise complex tasks. Now, if you remove the incentive towards work and simply hand out the benefits... who'd work and what for? For a principle? Ha!



> My point is that we produce enough for all of humanity and that it's distributed in a retarded way because of greed.
> Half the world suffers from starvation, disease and war. Humanity should have progressed past such a pitiful state of affairs by now, but it hasn't because of the greed the few.


Or perhaps not because of the greed of the few but the unfavourable circumstances? Or perhaps because there is no drive to invest in areas of rampant poverty? Or perhaps because charities give out food, drink and clothes rather than job opportunities, going againts the _"fishing rod"_ principle?

You're simplifying things way too much - starving people would still be starving even if you remove money out of the equation because money by itself does not have any value - money is a common and universal tool for expressing a person's wealth. Just removing money doesn't make anyone any wealthier or poorer.


----------



## McHaggis (Apr 28, 2013)

I can't believe I wasted perfectly good bandwidth downloading this thread.  I could have used that bandwidth to pirate stuff faster.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 28, 2013)

Another way that greed is made irrelevant is by measuring another factor called "consumption capacity". In other words, it's how much a person can actually "consume" in any given day, month, or year. A person might be greedy for something more than what they can consume, but it's made irrelevant by the knowledge of how much they CAN consume, and certainly, how much they are consuming in relation to how much is available on the planet. After all, no human desires for our resources to run dry, and if they do, the AI can deny their request.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> Another way that greed is made irrelevant is by measuring another factor called "consumption capacity". In other words, it's how much a person can actually "consume" in any given day, month, or year. A person might be greedy for something more than what they can consume, but it's made irrelevant by the knowledge of how much they CAN consume, and certainly, how much they are consuming in relation to how much is available on the planet. After all, no human desires for our resources to run dry, and if they do, the AI can deny their request.


Oh, but many people simply look forward into the future - they wish to attain a comfortable life for their offspring and the offspring of their offspring - as such, the quest for wealth does not end when reaching your capacity to consume, it ends when you die. Do you propose introducing an AI that would control what we can and cannot do as a species? How does that mend the situation outside of limiting our own freedom?


----------



## DinohScene (Apr 28, 2013)

SNES games back in the day also cost 60 quid at launch ._.

It's the people themselves that are to blame.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> SNES games back in the day also cost 60 quid at launch ._.
> 
> It's the people themselves that are to blame.


On top of that, 60 quid back then was _"worth"_ more than it is now - way more in fact.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Apr 29, 2013)

Yeah to be honest, i stopped at the point where you said "Money"


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 29, 2013)

This AI does not control our actions; it merely controls and regulates, with perfect precision, our access to our resources, relative to how much there is left and how much we're using and requesting. It will bring attention to when there is a too-rapid depletion of a resource. It will allow us to arrive at decisions using logical calculations. Essentially, it is what we really desire when we hire a politician, except that it is not corruptible and is perfect in it's execution of the collective human will. Since it is open-source, as well, it will allow the people to "vote" via coding on how and what policy is executed. Simply, if you want to be able to vote, you must become educated enough to learn programming. Granted, it isn't a perfect system, but the idea isn't perfection, which is an impossible feat in this case, but rather, tackling our problems in a logical, thought-out manner. This is in vast contrast to our current system at which we just sort of shrug our shoulders and say, "not enough money". Millions of starving children around the world? Not enough money. Healthcare not available to the impovershed? Eh, not enough money. You get the idea.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Apr 29, 2013)

yeah, reproduction costs cant really be named as the reason for a price anymore. but theres more than mere reproduction. and software production costs manpower. usually expensive manpower.

do agree though, that there should be quite a lot more price reduction over time in the digital world.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> This AI does not control our actions; it merely controls and regulates, with perfect precision, our access to our resources, relative to how much there is left and how much we're using and requesting. It will bring attention to when there is a too-rapid depletion of a resource. It will allow us to arrive at decisions using logical calculations. Essentially, it is what we really desire when we hire a politician, except that it is not corruptible and is perfect in it's execution of the collective human will. Since it is open-source, as well, it will allow the people to "vote" via coding on how and what policy is executed. Simply, if you want to be able to vote, you must become educated enough to learn programming. Granted, it isn't a perfect system, but the idea isn't perfection, which is an impossible feat in this case, but rather, tackling our problems in a logical, thought-out manner. This is in vast contrast to our current system at which we just sort of shrug our shoulders and say, "not enough money". Millions of starving children around the world? Not enough money. Healthcare not available to the impovershed? Eh, not enough money. You get the idea.


No, I don't get the _"idea"_ because all you're doing is removing one framework of establishing value and installing another - this doesn't fix anything at all. Moreover, you also install unequality on the basis of mental skills - _not everyone is inclined towards programming_, you effectively remove the capacity to vote away from the people you find unworthy.


----------



## Schizoanalysis (Apr 29, 2013)

OP reminds me of Slavoj Zizek.


----------



## xist (Apr 29, 2013)

This is looking less and less like a perfect society and more and more like thought police...


----------



## Shoat (Apr 29, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Why would people produce anything if the system they live in guaranteed that they will be fed regardless of whether or not they put any effort into anything at all? There is no driving force here to make people work for the common good_._
> 
> ...
> 
> Or perhaps because there is no drive to invest in areas of rampant poverty? Or perhaps because charities give out food, drink and clothes rather than job opportunities, going againts the _"fishing rod"_ principle?


 
As I admitted before, introducing a fair and beneficial system would require getting rid of greed and laziness and such and, thus, is inapplicable to the reality of today (which is why it's a utopia).
You repeatedly confirming that doesn't add much to be honest.


On Motivation and such:
*If* we continue producing resources and started distributing them all over the world, we would have enough food, clean water, medicine and materials for infrastructure for all over the world. The ridiculous surplus of _everything_ in the rich part of the world should be enough proof for that.
In a utopia where no one's an asshole, there wouldn't need to be a "_fishing rod_" principle to motivate people to contribute. Just knowing that everyone else also contributes for the stuff that you're consuming would be enough.
Also, no one would even begin to think about whether or not "investing in areas of rampant poverty" was "worth it" - why would you let others suffer horribly when you could prevent it? (Maybe someone who hasn't spent half his life in poverty thinks otherwise about issues like these, but I wouldn't be able to bear sitting on a huge pile of money while watching others suffer, which is why I'll never be wealthy.)


Of course the real world isn't anywhere near such a point - I didn't call it utopia for shits and giggles. In fact, I'm pretty sure my first post already mentioned that for this to succeed we'd have to genetically improve humans or apply controlled evolution by throwing bad apples off the planet, neither of which are very realistic.

I know how reality *is*, I get reminded of that enough - all I'm claiming is that this utopia *should* *be* and that the current system is inherently flawed and outright evil (it might be okay for you, but just imagine the hundreds of milions of people who got fucked over without having done anything wrong).


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2013)

xist said:


> This is looking less and less like a perfect society and more and more like thought police...


The truth of the matter is that _nothing_ would change at all - the AI would calculate the value of goods - this would become the substitute of today's money-based economy of suppy and demand. It would distribute goods according to the directives inputted by its users, and seeing that only people capable of coding would control the AI, they would naturally work towards their benefit rather than the common benefit, effectively controlling society. We would return to the point from which we left off - with the wealthy caste and the povert caste, the only difference being that we would no longer use currecy to measure wealth.

People think that money is this mythical dragon which spoils the society wheras for all intents and purposes, a dollar is a measure of wealth as much as a meter is a measure of length. By itself, the measure does not mean anything - it's what it represents that matters.


----------



## xist (Apr 29, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> We would return to the point from which we left off - with the wealthy caste and the povert caste


 
Except where we are today people can aspire to achieve more, in the AI controlled society people would accept their lot because of course how can the AI be unfair? We're all equal just like on Animal Farm...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2013)

xist said:


> Except where we are today people can aspire to achieve more, in the AI controlled society people would accept their lot because of course how can the AI be unfair? We're all equal just like on Animal Farm...


It's an illusion of lack of freedom - an AI is programmed by the programmers caste so _some_ individuals _would_ have a choice. The AI can be unfair if you tell it to be unfair.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 29, 2013)

I will be back momentarily to fill this post with the rebuttal to this point. Stay tuned after these messages.


----------



## xist (Apr 29, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's an illusion of lack of freedom - an AI is programmed by the programmers caste so _some_ individuals _would_ have a choice. The AI can be unfair if you tell it to be unfair.


 
What i meant was that those on the poor end of the spectrum would be lulled into the sense that they're being treated equally because the AI is the one in control (ultimately the programmers are but they're not the ones dishing out the orders). It turns the dissatisfied poor into the satisfied poor who know no better....so we get a society happy to be unhappy.


----------



## DinohScene (Apr 29, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> On top of that, 60 quid back then was _"worth"_ more than it is now - way more in fact.


 
Far more.
I can refill me car for just over 60 these days.
It'll last a week ish?
Back then if I where to refuel I could fill up like 3 times.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Apr 29, 2013)

soulx said:


> Well this is one of the more unique ways I've seen of people trying to justify piracy.


 
It's a valid point though. If you can repeatedly produce the same thing over and over again to infinity, utilizing a piece of technology, how is it wrong to steal it if there are limitless quantities of it? It would be easy to counter if you were talking about a physical item where there are limited quantities based on the output capacity of the manufacturing process, but not for digital.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2013)

xist said:


> What i meant was that those on the poor end of the spectrum would be lulled into the sense that they're being treated equally because the AI is the one in control (ultimately the programmers are but they're not the ones dishing out the orders). It turns the dissatisfied poor into the satisfied poor who know no better....so we get a society happy to be unhappy.


In other words all we have to do these days is convince the poor that they're not really poor amirite? 


DSGamer64 said:


> It's a valid point though. If you can repeatedly produce the same thing over and over again to infinity, utilizing a piece of technology, how is it wrong to steal it if there are limitless quantities of it? It would be easy to counter if you were talking about a physical item where there are limited quantities based on the output capacity of the manufacturing process, but not for digital.


That's why we don't normally use the term _"steal"_ in reference to piracy - we merely say _"unauthorized copying and/or distribution"_. While the process of copying digital media takes no effort whatsoever, the process of creating them does - this is why you pay for digital media in the first place.


----------



## Sterling (Apr 29, 2013)

Wolvenreign, you should go watch Fractale. This show is almost exactly what you're talking about, and the author's vision of what might happen.


----------



## 3DSGuy (Apr 29, 2013)

Interesting read.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 29, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> No, I don't get the _"idea"_ because all you're doing is removing one framework of establishing value and installing another - this doesn't fix anything at all. Moreover, you also install unequality on the basis of mental skills - _not everyone is inclined towards programming_, you effectively remove the capacity to vote away from the people you find unworthy.


 
The problem with money is, again, that it doesn't measure anything real. It's commodity, NOT resource. This is something that a lot of people easily mess up. Allow me to illuminate the difference.

Take, for example, the case of celebrity items being sold for ridiculous amounts of money that you say would represent resources. Is Elvis' hair any more useful as a resource than anyone else's hair, outside of it's use in commerce? No, and that's what makes it a commodity. On the other hand, $115,120 worth of farmland would have been useful in actually feeding people, which makes it a resource. Do you know why the celebrity hair is more valuable in a monetary economy, than, say, even a single meal to feed a single person? It's because it's more scarce relative to the desire for it. That's what makes it so utterly ridiculous in the first place. (Sorry for the weird text, I copied this from a PM because it was exactly what I wanted to say here.)

This value needs to be replaced because it isn't accurate. That's what technology and improvement are all about; changing things as you know more about them so they solve problems and/or solve them more efficiently. In this case, we are replacing commodity-value with resource-value, actually entailing exactly how much energy something uses, what materials it has, and how much is left. Actually measuring how much we have so we can use it accordingly and have it available for re-use.

Due to this being a society of technology whose language is programming, one would need to know how to program every bit as much as a person who wants to vote now needs to know how to read. This effectively guarantees an educated democracy who are more understanding of what is needed in a program that ensures equal access to the world's resources. At one point, we may have said "democracy creates a caste for the educated who know how to read!", and we may have very well been right. However, the right sort of education, especially if it's done globally, changes that drastically.

I think this video, in addition, can help everyone to understand what changed about our society after technology advanced rapidly during the Great Depression.


----------



## xist (Apr 29, 2013)

It's dismaying to see that you can't see any flaws in your ideal society that relies on everyone involved having the same (high) proficiencies...like it or lump it, everyone is different and can't contribute to society in the same ways. A resource based economy is something we've moved beyond....you take an example of a celebrity nick-nak, but are antiques really any different? Lets say you have something recovered from the Titanic. It's not worth anything in your terms. Additionally equating everyone's efforts is immensely short-sighted.

Take Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom is a stand up Comedian....he LOVES people watching/listening/talking about him, he enjoys writing his material and he's very funny....it just comes naturally to him as he's quick witted. He entertains tens of thousands of people with his shows and gets paid extremely well for it. He doesn't regard it as hard either. Then there's Dick a complex paediatric Neurosurgeon who sees one or two people a day. His job is very stressful despite only seeing 7 or 8 cases each week and his impact upon society is very low in terms of raw output...these children are not contributing to society and very well may never do so. However it's important work and despite being stressful and sometimes keeping him awake with worry when something goes wrong he impacts heavily on the families he interacts with. Then there's Harry. He's not very bright but he's immensely strong and trained for years as a Farrier. However that career totally dried up in this new age and he's had to find other work....which he does scraping down sewer walls (i know someone who has done this...it's a real job). He spends 8 to 10 hours a day in the most foul places imaginable doing back breaking work...it doesn't require any skill, he doesn't have much responsibility but without that mindless work eventually there'd be sanitation problems and illness.

In order of pay i would expect in the real world it would probably be world class comic > surgeon > sewer scraper. However in your terms the one who makes the biggest resource impact is that last one. Surely i can't be the only one thinking that's a completely messed up system.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 29, 2013)

Money, huh?

Money, get away. Get a good job with more pay and you're okay. Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a splash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back. I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off my stack. Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody-good bullshit. I'm in the hi-fidelity, first class traveling set and I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime. Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie. Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today, but if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're giving none away.



Spoiler



Yeah, I think I arrived too late to offer anything of substance. I will say that money, for all its ills, is an extremely efficient tool for bartering, and is so ingrained into society that I don't think it will - or could - go anywhere anytime soon. That's just the reality of the situation, and we're better off trying to improve what we have now for the betterment of all than chasing utopic dreams.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 29, 2013)

Wow

Talk about a misleading title.


----------



## FireGrey (Apr 29, 2013)

I don't think that the developer not getting money is the issue of piracy, as pre-owned is perfectly accepted by pretty much everyone.
The real issue with piracy is the fact that there are people that buy things with their hard earned money, while there are others who just cheat the system and get the same thing for free.
But can you really blame them for getting it for free?
Money is better went towards things other than media, media has such ridiculous amounts of money while there are people working their asses off getting nothing, but on top of that expected to fork out huge amounts of money for entertainment.
The Media Industry have so much money that it's basically a playground for rich people , creating whatever the hell controversial things (Honey boo-boo) they want.


----------



## dickfour (Apr 29, 2013)

This is a stupid, naive article that's too long by 3/4s. It would be great if everything was free and we lived in a utopia and we could all jerk ourselves off over the rainbow. Not really, I like the struggle, the wars, the money, climbing over other people that aren't as talented as me. I guess we all have our ideas of what utopia is


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 29, 2013)

xist said:


> It's dismaying to see that you can't see any flaws in your ideal society that relies on everyone involved having the same (high) proficiencies...


 
Xist, what's dismaying to me is your continuous inability to read and comprehend the information presented. I have said



> Granted, it isn't a perfect system, but the idea isn't perfection, which is an impossible feat in this case, but rather, tackling our problems in a logical, thought-out manner.


 
This very clearly demonstrates that you are holding on to the idea that what I have presented is utopic and idealistic, rather than scientific and logical. It's us trying, via complete measurement and calculation of the rate of use of the resources available to us, to determine where resources and effort should be placed to create a sustainable global economy in amidst a finite set of resources.

Due to this, I must ask you...do you care more about making a point, or arriving at a logical conclusion based on reason and evidence? You certainly don't seem interested in reading the reasoning, and you seem incapable of observing the evidence, as you yourself had admitted when you said that you cannot watch the videos I have presented due to your lack of bandwidth. Is this not the same as a blind man attempting to be a lawyer? To clarify, I am not trying to be insulting. I am asking an honest question about your ability to partake in this conversation.



> like it or lump it, everyone is different and can't contribute to society in the same ways. A resource based economy is something we've moved beyond....


 
Moved beyond? We have never partaken in a resource-based economy. As I have clarified in my very first post, communism or any other ideal which has fallen did so because it was tied up with money. The USSR fell because it couldn't keep up with US Military spending, as seen in this well sourced article. The closest thing that has ever come to fruition (and it didn't, in the end) was Technocracy, a movement of the 1930s that recognized money's role in the Great Depression following the Industrial Revolution.



> you take an example of a celebrity nick-nak, but are antiques really any different? Lets say you have something recovered from the Titanic. It's not worth anything in your terms.


 
Precisely, because it is a commodity of historical value, not of resource value. In other words, it would not be traded for something that can feed, clothe, or house people, because those things are resources. And, as Dr. Indiana Jones once said...
















> Additionally equating everyone's efforts is immensely short-sighted.


 
Do you know what I think is short-sighted? Continuing to waste our finite resources via planned obsolescence until all of it lays in an unusable junk heap, and no amount of money will ever feed, clothe, or house anyone ever again. That is the process that a global monetary system creates out of necessity for it's own continued, needless survival. Besides, "equating" everyone's efforts is absurd. It's always comparing apples to oranges, and in no sense does a resource-based economy "equate" anyone's efforts. Again, you have misunderstood. When I gave the example of someone creating greater fuel efficiency for the sake of having greater fuel efficiency, it wasn't that just this one person gets the greater fuel efficiency; the discovery is published and instantly made part of scientific knowledge, which, given rigorous enough testing, becomes a part of technology. This is the strength known as "the internet", and it was part of my original point in my post; the ability to replicate and transmit technological and all sorts of data shouldn't be restricted by the ultimately arbitrary commodity-based value system. These sorts of things *aren't* scarce, they're nigh-infinite, and we should use this to our advantage as a species rather than confine it to an age-old, unscientific, thoughtless system.



> Take Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom is a stand up Comedian....he LOVES people watching/listening/talking about him, he enjoys writing his material and he's very funny....it just comes naturally to him as he's quick witted. He entertains tens of thousands of people with his shows and gets paid extremely well for it. He doesn't regard it as hard either. Then there's Dick a complex paediatric Neurosurgeon who sees one or two people a day. His job is very stressful despite only seeing 7 or 8 cases each week and his impact upon society is very low in terms of raw output...these children are not contributing to society and very well may never do so. However it's important work and despite being stressful and sometimes keeping him awake with worry when something goes wrong he impacts heavily on the families he interacts with. Then there's Harry. He's not very bright but he's immensely strong and trained for years as a Farrier. However that career totally dried up in this new age and he's had to find other work....which he does scraping down sewer walls (i know someone who has done this...it's a real job). He spends 8 to 10 hours a day in the most foul places imaginable doing back breaking work...it doesn't require any skill, he doesn't have much responsibility but without that mindless work eventually there'd be sanitation problems and illness.
> 
> In order of pay i would expect in the real world it would probably be world class comic > surgeon > sewer scraper. However in your terms the one who makes the biggest resource impact is that last one. Surely i can't be the only one thinking that's a completely messed up system.


 
Allow me to show you something, xist.

This is Earth.






This is Earth in space.






Earth represents the amount of resources we actually have compared to how much we don't have, which is outer space.

We can also see that this picture represents how much I give a shit about your world-class comic (Earth) compared to how much anyone should care about the preservation of our resources and ability to sustain life on Earth (space).

This is _reality_, xist. If we as a species want to survive in this near-infinite blackness, if we want to reach to the farthest stars, if we want to see and experience everything that science has to offer us as sentient beings, we have to play it *smart*. We have to do everything in our power to ensure that there will be resources for our children, and our children's children, and so on. We don't do that by equating resources to celebrity hair or Titanic vases. We don't do it by assigning a magical value to a comedian's work. We do it by measuring how much we have and carefully deliberating how much we're using. We do it by using less while producing more (technology), we do it by seeing how much there is and how much we're using. Science is the answer, not half-baked truisms, not tradition, not worthless, thoughtless arbitrary feelings about utopia and non-utopia.

Speaking of which, feel free to read this next paragraph over and over again until you finally understand it.

A resource-based economy is not a utopia. It does not thrive on idealism. It thrives on careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor. It accounts for humans' _actual _behavior based on what we really observe in motivational and psychological science, not bizarre, uninformed truisms like "human nature". It is not Communism. Communism collapsed due to financial problems. It is not the same as money. Money is commodity, not resource.

Oh, and I know that you must have a lot of feelings about the point you want to make right now, but in my experience, it is always better to sit back for a while and think about the points given, to look at the evidence presented, and actually think about substantiating your points with sourced articles and examples. After all, when you make a positive statement, you have a burden of proof to meet. Feel free to point to something I haven't backed up.



FireGrey said:


> I don't think that the developer not getting money is the issue of piracy, as pre-owned is perfectly accepted by pretty much everyone.
> The real issue with piracy is the fact that there are people that buy things with their hard earned money, while there are others who just cheat the system and get the same thing for free.
> But can you really blame them for getting it for free?
> Money is better went towards things other than media, media has such ridiculous amounts of money while there are people working their asses off getting nothing, but on top of that expected to fork out huge amounts of money for entertainment.
> The Media Industry have so much money that it's basically a playground for rich people , creating whatever the hell controversial things (Honey boo-boo) they want.


No offense, FireGrey, but did you read the first post at all, or did you simply read the title and reply...?



dickfour said:


> This is a stupid, naive article that's too long by 3/4s. It would be great if everything was free and we lived in a utopia and we could all jerk ourselves off over the rainbow. Not really, I like the struggle, the wars, the money, climbing over other people that aren't as talented as me. I guess we all have our ideas of what utopia is


 
I find it amusing that you would write "this is stupid" and then immediately "it's too long!".

Remember kids, saying TL;DR is the same as saying "I'm way too stupid to actually read through all of this and understand it in any capacity.".

Also, how are you contributing to a conversation about solving problems by saying that you like problems?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> I don't think that the developer not getting money is the issue of piracy, as pre-owned is perfectly accepted by pretty much everyone.


In the case of pre-owned software, the developer was already paid for that particular copy by the previous owner - there's no reason as to why the company should be paid twice for it. The license to own the software _(in the form of the physical medium)_ transfers to the new owner.



> The real issue with piracy is the fact that there are people that buy things with their hard earned money, while there are others who just cheat the system and get the same thing for free. But can you really blame them for getting it for free?


Of course you can - it's unauthorized copying.



> Money is better went towards things other than media,


Meaning _"not Sony"_? I jest, I jest. 



> media has such ridiculous amounts of money while there are people working their asses off getting nothing, but on top of that expected to fork out huge amounts of money for entertainment.


Because the people who create said media dedicated their lives to educate themselves in the areas concerned with its creation, likely spending money to achieve the necessary qualifications. That, and the companies themselves have to fork out millions to properly distribute as well as advertise their products in order to make them actually sell.



> The Media Industry have so much money that it's basically a playground for rich people , creating whatever the hell controversial things (Honey boo-boo) they want.


...again, those rich people 9 out of 10 times weren't born into filthy wealth - Microsoft and Apple started off in garages and they're giants now, Notch made his fortune _(it can easily be considered a fortune at this point)_ with a single well-selling game - these are not isolated cases. Is the media industry a playground of rich people? Yes, yes it is, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't enter it - you just need to have a good idea and you need to know how to sell it.

Again, we run into the non-existant dilemma of whether or not we should pay for digital media if it's not physical. I say non-existant because we obviously should - the fact that it's merely information doesn't mean that it doesn't have a given value attached to it, derrived from the development, advertisement and distribution costs.

If you really want to think about this in terms of resources then think about all the food and drink the developers and their families consumed during development which are covered by their paycheck, all the paper wasted on promotional posters and adverisements or reviews in magazines, all the electricity that was used to run the computers used _(and that entails using whatever resources are used in nearby power plants)_, all the rolls of film and tapes used when filming or recording and so on and so forth - you _do_ use very _physical_ resources during the creation of completely _non-physical_ media - you just never think about it.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 29, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> If you really want to think about this in terms of resources then think about all the food and drink the developers and their families consumed during development which are covered by their paycheck, all the paper wasted on promotional posters and advertisements or reviews in magazines, all the electricity that was used to run the computers used _(and that entails using whatever resources are used in nearby power plants)_, all the rolls of film and tapes used when filming or recording and so on and so forth - you _do_ use very _physical_ resources during the creation of completely _non-physical_ media - you just never think about it.


 
You're missing the point.

Regardless of whether something uses or doesn't use physical resources, the fact that we are allowed to experience technology free from the restraints of an absurd, immoral, intellectually bankrupt system is something that needs to be celebrated, not shamed or shunned.



> The guilt that you feel when you "pirate" something is the guilt of the slave afraid to leave his/her chains. The guilt of the runaway slave worker who fears that his/her fellow human property will be flogged because of his/her disappearance. Your empathy, though well meant, is entirely misplaced. Your chains are not of steel; they are of paper. Your locks are not the locks of metal; they are price tags.


 
On the besides, in terms of resources, the food and drink the developers and their families consumed during development are actually just the food and drink they needed to survive. In a sane world, a world of calculation and measurement, these things would be provided so they wouldn't have to even think about money. Go watch the video about motivational science on the first page again, if you haven't already. People desire mastery, fun, and recognition. None of these things "require" a monetary system.

I do agree that paper is wasted on advertisement, as is pretty much anything else related to it. It's one of the biggest useless dumps of resources we've ever known.

Let me ask you this, as well...do you understand the difference between commodities and resources now? It seems to have been a major source of contention.


----------



## xist (Apr 29, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> Xist, what's dismaying to me is your continuous inability to read and comprehend the information presented.
> 
> This very clearly demonstrates that you are holding on to the idea that what I have presented is utopic and idealistic, rather than scientific and logical. It's us trying, via complete measurement and calculation of the rate of use of the resources available to us, to determine where resources and effort should be placed to create a sustainable global economy in amidst a finite set of resources.


 
You haven't presented anything logical. You've presented an idealistic dream that's reliant on tearing down our current system and is dependent upon all the richest and most powerful people suddenly becoming true altruists. It's also dependent upon everyone being of equal high ability and self motivated. My viewpoint doesn't demonstrate that i'm holding onto anything other than experience of real life and observations of people in the public and private sectors. You seem to be continually missing the point that "worth" or "value" is relative....there is no complete measurement or calculation that would be accurate for all. Furthermore given that society is not at a plateau any potential calculation made may be rendered obsolete at any point.




Wolvenreign said:


> Due to this, I must ask you...do you care more about making a point, or arriving at a logical conclusion based on reason and evidence? You certainly don't seem interested in reading the reasoning, and you seem incapable of observing the evidence, as you yourself had admitted when you said that you cannot watch the videos I have presented due to your lack of bandwidth. Is this not the same as a blind man attempting to be a lawyer? To clarify, I am not trying to be insulting. I am asking an honest question about your ability to partake in this conversation.


 
The evidence? You haven't presented any evidence...just a video. Are there extant communes living like this interacting with the world around them and thriving? But wait, your net sentence implies the only evidence is the video....nothing else? I can't watch a video and since there's no documented peer reviewed articles published on this i'm a figurative blind man? Obviously that video must be critical to the whole argument.



Wolvenreign said:


> Moved beyond? We have never partaken in a resource-based economy. As I have clarified in my very first post, communism or any other ideal which has fallen did so because it was tied up with money. The USSR fell because it couldn't keep up with US Military spending, as seen in this well sourced article. The closest thing that has ever come to fruition (and it didn't, in the end) was Technocracy, a movement of the 1930s that recognized money's role in the Great Depression following the Industrial Revolution.


 
The Middle Ages saw resource based economies thrive across Europe. As populations grew and trade increased the economies changed and money became more popular again. And that article on the collapse of the Russian economy skims over the realities of the situation at the time...there was no real economic recovery following Stalin's death and what plagued the USSR was the concentration on the Military rather than domestic goods. Additionally the corruption within many of the private firms responsible for armaments and the lack of Russia's reach to other supportive systems, coupled with civil unrest and massive class divisions meant that whilst the military was the first wobble everything else went down around the same time. Blaming money for the collapse of the USSR is shortsighted. A Technocracy boils down to being a form of meritocracy...and they've most certainly existed before. Ultimately they can only succeed properly if each individual is unselfish...something that is generally far from common. Most people can't help but put themselves first in however small a way.




Wolvenreign said:


> Precisely, because it is a commodity of historical value, not of resource value. In other words, it would not be traded for something that can feed, clothe, or house people, because those things are resources.


 
It's a resource because it's provides historical contact with an important event. It may be a commodity too but to certain people it's just as much a resource. As i noted earlier it comes down to perspective which isn't equivalent across the world.












Wolvenreign said:


> Do you know what I think is short-sighted? Continuing to waste our finite resources via planned obsolescence until all of it lays in an unusable junk heap, and no amount of money will ever feed, clothe, or house anyone ever again.


 
Actually i'm pretty sure it's short-sighted if you think that's actually what's going to happen. Perhaps if you wear a tin foil hat, but for most normal people they'll recognise that strategies adapt and evolve to deal with prevailing political and economic changes. I don't think that Wall-E is a true view of the future.






Wolvenreign said:


> We can also see that this picture represents how much I give a shit about your world-class comic (Earth) compared to how much anyone should care about the preservation of our resources and ability to sustain life on Earth (space).
> 
> This is _reality_, xist. If we as a species want to survive in this near-infinite blackness, if we want to reach to the farthest stars, if we want to see and experience everything that science has to offer us as sentient beings, we have to play it *smart*. We have to do everything in our power to ensure that there will be resources for our children, and our children's children, and so on. We don't do that by equating resources to celebrity hair or Titanic vases. We don't do it by assigning a magical value to a comedian's work. We do it by measuring how much we have and carefully deliberating how much we're using. We do it by using less while producing more (technology), we do it by seeing how much there is and how much we're using. Science is the answer, not half-baked truisms, not tradition, not worthless, thoughtless arbitrary feelings about utopia and non-utopia.


 
Really? You really don't think that in our evil world of monetary economies that resource management and future proofing tomorrow is occurring? I don't know your educational background but as someone with two science degrees i can tell you with first hand knowledge that people are already doing that. We don't need to abolish our current system to do it any better.



Wolvenreign said:


> Speaking of which, feel free to read this next paragraph over and over again until you finally understand it.


 
Not insulting huh?



Wolvenreign said:


> A resource-based economy is not a utopia. It does not thrive on idealism. It thrives on careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor. It accounts for humans' _actual _behavior based on what we really observe in motivational and psychological science, not bizarre, uninformed truisms like "human nature". It is not Communism. Communism collapsed due to financial problems. It is not the same as money. Money is commodity, not resource.


 
If we look at human ethology we can see that mankind has always achieved more when spurred on to succeed. Remove an individuals desire for some form of personal success or reward and you eliminate half the impetus to succeed. It is idealistic to assume that everyone is capable of interacting at that high academic standard...it is idealistic to assume that everyone will want to contribute...it is idealistic to assume that everyone is equally motivated. I agree Money is not a resource, but it IS what the world uses as a foundation. It might be theoretically preferable to change that foundation but it's not realistic....therefore it's an idealistic viewpoint. Furthermore, as you stated earlier if the main determinant for arguing a case here is a video there doesn't seem to be much "_careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor_."



Wolvenreign said:


> Feel free to point to something I haven't backed up.


 
Getting back to that calculation, measurement, experimentation and scientific rigour it'd be fantastic to see some peer reviewed published articles documenting the inevitable collapse of civilisation you predict, some more documenting successful communes living like this and a set detailing the logical method for equating worth of value for all people around the world. The size of the world precludes one giant ecosystem of the sort you describe so meta-communities would exist...what one community values another based elsewhere in the world may not.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 30, 2013)

xist said:


> You haven't presented anything logical. You've presented an idealistic dream that's reliant on tearing down our current system and is dependent upon all the richest and most powerful people suddenly becoming true altruists. It's also dependent upon everyone being of equal high ability and self motivated. My viewpoint doesn't demonstrate that i'm holding onto anything other than experience of real life and observations of people in the public and private sectors. You seem to be continually missing the point that "worth" or "value" is relative....there is no complete measurement or calculation that would be accurate for all. Furthermore given that society is not at a plateau any potential calculation made may be rendered obsolete at any point.



Nowhere did I claim that the system is dependent on the richest and most powerful people suddenly becoming true altruists. That is an assumption you are making and continue to make regardless of it's logical merit. The same goes for your claim that it is reliant on everyone being of equal high ability and self motivation. You see, the point is this; given the use of replication technology, greed and altruism essentially become indistinguishable. This is observable not only in open-source software movements such as GNU/Linux, Wikipedia, Firefox, Chrome, etc, but also in physical space, such as with self-replicating 3D printers like RepRap. This distinction between making something for yourself and making something for everyone disappears when replication reaches the point of total abundance, and all that is left is ambition. Regardless of whether you wanted to do it for yourself or for the world, you still do it, and you still upload your work to the rest of the world. Do you know when this stops? When money gets in the way. When money makes it NECESSARY for you to charge for your product and gate it off to the rest of the world, just so you can have a chance at keeping your home, food, and family. In other words, when money enforces scarcity.

Will it require a cultural revolution? What WILL be required to make this happen? I don't know for sure, but I think it starts with showing people the state of technology and having them realize that we don't need to enforce scarcity when such incredible abundance is possible.

And as far as "experience of real life and observations of people in the public and private sectors" goes, this is citing of anecdotal evidence, and as you can see from the link, it is illogical.




> The evidence? You haven't presented any evidence...just a video. Are there extant communes living like this interacting with the world around them and thriving? But wait, your net sentence implies the only evidence is the video....nothing else? I can't watch a video and since there's no documented peer reviewed articles published on this i'm a figurative blind man? Obviously that video must be critical to the whole argument.


 
You assume that the video cannot be evidence, when it is, in fact, a compilation of evidence that produces a case. You are a figurative blind man because you cannot watch this compilation of evidence.

Regardless, I will now link to the study the video refers to. As for the video on the front page of the Venus Project website, Paradise or Oblivion, that is merely a summation of the information provided on www.thevenusproject.com, so you have every opportunity to determine what you're attacking ACTUALLY is compared to what you think it is. When you are able to cease throwing (perhaps unintentional, but still uninformed) straw men, we can move this conversation forward with my actual position.

This is, by the way, in stark contrast to how you have not linked to anything in any of your posts, or sourced any of your claims thus far, period.




> The Middle Ages saw resource based economies thrive across Europe. As populations grew and trade increased the economies changed and money became more popular again. And that article on the collapse of the Russian economy skims over the realities of the situation at the time...there was no real economic recovery following Stalin's death and what plagued the USSR was the concentration on the Military rather than domestic goods. Additionally the corruption within many of the private firms responsible for armaments and the lack of Russia's reach to other supportive systems, coupled with civil unrest and massive class divisions meant that whilst the military was the first wobble everything else went down around the same time. Blaming money for the collapse of the USSR is shortsighted. A Technocracy boils down to being a form of meritocracy...and they've most certainly existed before. Ultimately they can only succeed properly if each individual is unselfish...something that is generally far from common. Most people can't help but put themselves first in however small a way.


 
Once again, you have clearly demonstrated your lack of ability to read what is written and discuss my actual position. I had very, very clearly stated in my first post that a resource based economy is not barter, which is what you seem to think it is.



> Some clarification before I go on; I'm using "money" as shorthand for "any system of resource distribution which relies on the use of scarcity "value". This includes capitalism, communism, and *any sort of barter system*. It doesn't even matter whether it's fiat or "silver/gold standard". Any system at all that uses the scarcity of an item relative to the desire for it as "value" is fundamentally flawed, yet almost entirely unquestioned. A disclaimer, as well; this isn't to say it wasn't, at one point, a useful invention. It is simply irrelevant given our current level of technology and what we have been able to do as a society for nearly a century.


 
You know, I would think that after all of these posts that you've made and all the times I've asked you to read my posts thoroughly, you would have actually researched the position and ceased to skim. It really would make for a much more efficient conversation.

A resource based economy, as envisioned by the Venus Project and what I refer to when I use the term, would have never been possible in the middle ages. It makes use of technology not available at the time, and uses a worldview that virtually no one had then, that being that the Earth and the resources available to us were finite. Not to mention that you make a huge historical claim about the soviet union without backing it up, which is just another instance of your failure to meet your burden of proof. I will tally what burdens of proof you have to meet at the end of this post.

A Technocracy does not "boil down" to a meritocracy. There are vastly many more intricacies in how it is built and how it functions, inherent in it's engineered design and scientific principles. The only thing that is "boiled down" here is your understanding of it, which I can only presume came from your apparently chronic habit of skimming.



> It's a resource because it's provides historical contact with an important event. It may be a commodity too but to certain people it's just as much a resource. As i noted earlier it comes down to perspective which isn't equivalent across the world.











Which is why it belongs in a museum for everyone to observe and grant historical contact with, not made equivalent to something that can feed and house hundreds of other people and traded as such.




> Actually i'm pretty sure it's short-sighted if you think that's actually what's going to happen. Perhaps if you wear a tin foil hat, but for most normal people they'll recognize that strategies adapt and evolve to deal with prevailing political and economic changes. I don't think that Wall-E is a true view of the future.


 
So what you're telling me is that it's crazy to think that wasting a vast amount of resources produces a vast amount of waste, and that it's utterly insane to think that a process which wastes resources at an unsustainable rate on a finite planet in which we don't even measure how many resources we have left will result in those resources being scarce to zilch. As far as recognizing that strategies adapt to evolve and deal with prevailing political and economic changes, that is more or less precisely what I'm advocating for, which is to say that the only real solution to not wasting all of our resources is to see how much we have left, how much we're using, and how we can improve it's usage. It's just basic logic when approaching a finite set of necessary resources. Survival, if you will.

Oh, and I'll let your "tin foil hat" comment stand on it's own as a perfect picture of the mindset you bring to each and every post that you have made in this conversation. Your stereotyping and unfounded presumptions about my stance color your perception and cause you to be entirely disabled in arriving at a real, rational conclusion using evidence and reason.




> Really? You really don't think that in our evil world of monetary economies that resource management and future proofing tomorrow is occurring? I don't know your educational background but as someone with two science degrees i can tell you with first hand knowledge that people are already doing that. We don't need to abolish our current system to do it any better.


 
It seems you have managed to combine three logical fallacies; that of argument from authority, anecdotal evidence, and yet another failure to meet your burden of proof. No, I don't trust you just because you assert that you have two science degrees. Plus, I would think that someone with two science degrees would do a better job at researching his opponent's position and meeting his own burdens of proof, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have them. Not that it matters as long as your logic is faulty, of course.

The specific burden of proof I refer to is that these projects are going on. So one more for the tally.

We need to abolish, or rather, stop, a process that demonstrably produces a vast amount of waste, and doing it better means not giving two rips about the profit motive and placing conservation and wise use of our resources as our top priority.




> Not insulting huh?


 
I don't insult subtly. You will know if I'm insulting you, because I will actually go out of my way to do it. It would be in your best interest to not assume that this is the case until it is explicit.

My point was that you continue to ignore my very clear statements about what a resource based economy is, as you have once more. If you find it insulting that I continue to point this out, I would suggest that a good solution is to actually do your research and address my real position.



> If we look at human ethology we can see that mankind has always achieved more when spurred on to succeed. Remove an individuals desire for some form of personal success or reward and you eliminate half the impetus to succeed. It is idealistic to assume that everyone is capable of interacting at that high academic standard...it is idealistic to assume that everyone will want to contribute...it is idealistic to assume that everyone is equally motivated. I agree Money is not a resource, but it IS what the world uses as a foundation. It might be theoretically preferable to change that foundation but it's not realistic....therefore it's an idealistic viewpoint. Furthermore, as you stated earlier if the main determinant for arguing a case here is a video there doesn't seem to be much "_careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor_."


 
Here, you once again fail to meet your burden of proof. You claim that human ethology (the entire field, apparently) agrees that we can see mankind has always achieved more when spurred on to succeed. This also goes for your assertion about removing an individual's desire and your assertion about everyone wanting to contribute being idealistic. You provide another logical fallacy in the form of an argument by assertion in merely asserting that it isn't realistic. Besides, it is hardly a binary state of affairs, which means you have committed yet another logical fallacy in the false dichotomy. Science often deals in what is not real *yet*, and it is known as the_ hypothetical _or the _theoretical_, depending on it's status as a hypothesis or a theory.




> Getting back to that calculation, measurement, experimentation and scientific rigor it'd be fantastic to see some peer reviewed published articles documenting the inevitable collapse of civilization you predict, some more documenting successful communes living like this and a set detailing the logical method for equating worth of value for all people around the world. The size of the world precludes one giant ecosystem of the sort you describe so meta-communities would exist...what one community values another based elsewhere in the world may not.


 [/QUOTE]

Given that we have a finite amount of resources and that they are being rapidly depleted by a profit motive incentive, why do you need a peer reviewed study to tell you that it will eventually run dry much faster than measuring them and watching it's depletion rate would cause it to? Should it not be patently obvious that a continued, sped-up drain on a finite pool will eventually run it dry? Why wouldn't it, exactly? What properties about the profit motive will absolutely ensure that we never run out of resources as long as it is profitable to keep draining and wasting them?

The sad truth of the matter is, there are none who are currently living like this. Why? Because it's impossible in a market economy to do so. Here's the thing, though, and this applies to communism as well; in science, we don't just stop experimenting because something failed in the past. If it is highly plausible that a better solution exists and we have the logic and science to back it up, why would we stop? Our knowledge is never improved by a lack of experimentation.

The fact that one community's culture may value something another's doesn't is entirely irrelevant. They are delivered their resources like anyone else, regardless of if they cherish it more. (Again, look at how it actually works before responding, please.)

So, as promised, I will tally the burdens of proof you have to meet, and as a bonus, I will also summarize the logical fallacies you have made.

Burden 1: Prove that the Soviet Union collapsed in the way you said it did.

Burden 2: Prove that this future-proofing you speak of is happening.

Burden 3: Human ethology agrees that mankind has always achieved more when spurred on to succeed. Actually, kind of that entire paragraph.

Logical Fallacies: Quoting anecdotal evidence, argument from authority, argument by assertion, straw man (uninformed via skimming variant), and false dichotomy. 

And lastly, this isn't an insult, but, please, please, PLEASE read up on The Venus Project and my arguments more carefully this time, think closely about meeting your burdens of proof, and thoroughly scrutinize your logic before posting. I really don't want to spend all this time picking through logical fallacies ever again.

(P.S. Hopefully the training you received from those two science degrees will help you.)


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Apr 30, 2013)

That was the longest lecture i have ever read in my entire life...awesome.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 30, 2013)

Not that you are being against this, DJ, but I would like to make it known that a complex, reaching subject like this needs complex, lengthy discussion.


----------



## guicrith (Apr 30, 2013)

1st I agree I would like that.
2nd There was hunting then there was farming then there was trading then money the way we get resources(food,water,clothes) has changed before it can change again.
3rd Humans selfish nature makes this imposable money is not the problem humans are look at the prisoners dilemma.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2013)

if I may intrude in a non-complex, non-lenghty manner... because correct answers are usually short and obvious.


Wolvenreign said:


> Burden 1: Prove that the Soviet Union collapsed in the way you said it did.


The Western world had money and was democratic, the Eastern world had money and was socialist/communist - the Western world did not collapse and the Eastern world did. By proxy, money is not at fault as it was a factor on both sides of the Iron Curtain - it's the system that failed. Not a fallacy - fact. It even springs from your apparent love of programming - the variable of money was present in both cases - it could _not_ have been the direct cause. The system was faulty by definition - it was faulty because human nature makes reaching total equality impossible. Just saying.


----------



## Dimensional (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm uncertain if the question was asked, but if we do away with money, what would happen? Would we go back to a barter system? How would we make it so it's not just software that is reproduced quickly and easily but hardware? What if a replicator system was made, like in Star Trek? Would companies lie back and let their profits become nill, knowing that someone else is able to make better products that are virtually free?

The answer to all that is no. A barter system is flawed, because like the monetary system, it's based on our notions of what something's value is. It all started out as personal value. What someone else wants, we feel we need to keep a hold of it. We're not willing to part with it unless we get something better in return, but in no way to make the other think of it like that. It's how it started out. Money was just brought it as a means of giving a better base line for the values.

Then you have reproducing hardware and software. Software can be easily reproduced, but a company doesn't want to lose out on profits. Even if they made it digital only, downloaded games and not something on a Disc or a game card, they care about profits. Money. Money. Money. More money. That's all they'll see. How to make themselves better. How to make their lives better. (My Economics Professor has said many times in class that we are all inherently selfish. We will never do something that has absolutely no benefit to us. A man won't give to charity unless he believes it'll help him either with good publicity or if he believes in Heaven and the story about getting rewarded generously in the after life.)

If we could make hardware easily reproducible like through a replicator system, what would the companies do? They'd all fight to get that technology for themselves so they can make great products for virtually no expense to them. They'd make a near 99.99% profit on every good they made, and other companies would be losing money because of this. Or they'd band together, knowing that this would completely destroy the value of the entire world's currency, and do everything they can to destroy that system and ban it for all eternity. Anything and everything they do is out of corporate and personal selfishness.

In the end, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We do away with money, and we go back to the stone age. We develop a 'replicator' system, and we'll either destroy the world economy or get attacked and have ourselves destroyed by corporate greed. And it's going to be difficult to move from one to the other, since so many people, most of them with a lot of financial and political power, are so fixed on preserving the status quo. They'll only move away from greed if they find something else that will make them happier in life.


----------



## Dimensional (Apr 30, 2013)

guicrith said:


> 1st I agree I would like that.
> 2nd There was hunting then there was farming then there was trading then money the way we get resources(food,water,clothes) has changed before it can change again.
> 3rd Humans selfish nature makes this imposable money is not the problem humans are look at the prisoners dilemma.


I couldn't agree more with point 3. Money is not the root of all evil. It's the love of money that's the problem.

Edit: Sorry for the double post. Don't know how to merge them.


----------



## LDAsh (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm cautious about these topics now and I don't want in on a huge debate, so I'll just say that game development takes a LOT of time, people and hardware to get done in a decent and proper way, to create what is more than some buggy Sudoku or Atari2600 concept, or building upon someone else's (likely many people's) code like emulators or ports.  To do something 100% original that is also substantial takes a lot of time, people and hardware.

If this can be done freely and quickly then I'd really like to see an example of that.  I don't know of any examples.

I think most gamers take for granted exactly how much effort has gone into their favourite titles and would be amazed to see the classroom-photo (just for a handheld title) of the "team" of developers and artists who worked hard to make it a reality.  For bigger PC titles the photo would look more like a page from a yearbook, hundreds of people.  It's a bit weird to assume they could all do it for free.  Money is certainly bad in a lot of ways but it can also work like glue to keep teams of people together and with the same common goals and focus.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Apr 30, 2013)

Dimensional said:


> I couldn't agree more with point 3. Money is not the root of all evil. It's the love of money that's the problem.


And Canada. 

Joostin really hopes XFlak sees this.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 30, 2013)

Foxi, you don't make a logical argument by asserting things and then not sourcing them. Yes, history does need to be sourced, especially when you're making a point. I sourced mine and continue to source it, I ask for the same courtesy.

(On the besides, why do you feel this compulsion to just say things about human nature and not back it up with any anthropological or psychological evidence? Doesn't evidence matter?)

Let's assume, though, that you're right. Have you considered that there are bad frameworks for money to exist in? Frameworks that cause the monetary system to fail?

Take the early 20th century, for example. This was right after the Industrial Revolution changed how commerce worked, creating a system where vastly fewer people were needed to create much, much more. Suddenly, supply and demand is turned on it's head! Suddenly, people couldn't afford the food that lined the shelves, despite the production being there. It was more or less just because these people were out of work. The market economy was borked.

So what was the magic element that suddenly made commerce work again? Well, quite simply, it was waste. Waste, waste, waste. Waste it all so the prices go back up, and then continue to waste so there is a constant scarcity, and thus a constant need to buy, buy, buy. Money doesn't work by itself in a post-industrial revolution economy; it needs juuuuuust the right conditions to thrive, and communism just wasn't cutting it.

Saying that communism failed on it's idealogical merits continues to ignore the enormous factor that the monetary system played in it, particularly in how much it corrupted it's leaders. And why do we say that greed is human nature when we have never observed man outside of a monetary economy? It seems highly unsubstantiated, and it seems the best we can do is to conduct experiments such as the ones conducted in that video about motivation on the first page.

Let me make a suggestion to you, Foxi. Before you say anything else about human nature, do some research on human nature.

Edit: Dimensional, LDAsh. I suggest that both of you do more reading on the subject. Dimensional, you need to read www.thevenusproject.com, which was the link in my signature which actually talks about a real solution to our problems, and it's nothing like what you describe. LDAsh, you need to read the opening post to understand what's being discussed.

Edit 2: It seems a chronic problem that people are responding more to the thread title than the actual opening post or the real idea that's being presented. I wonder if that's my fault? (No sarcasm.)

Wondering what I can do to help people comprehend what I'm actually saying.


----------



## SoraK05 (Apr 30, 2013)

I've skimmed though this thread.
Money helps, and has helped. Many cultures around devised a way to reward people for their efforts, with money, before they met after traveling, sailing and technology.

Money is good. What people do with it can be good or bad.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Apr 30, 2013)

Lol, just realized the thread title suggests anyone without money is problem-free. 

Before you start arguing, I know that's not your point.  That's just what the subject looks like.


----------



## gusmento01 (Apr 30, 2013)

Back in 1993, I had a Snes(as a matter of fact I still have it) and 25 cartridges, out of 25 games only 2 carts were original made by Nintendo(Super Mario World and Star Fox), everything else was pirate, you know why? Money, I remember my Dad paid 15 dollars for a pirate Super Metroid and a original was 70 dollars, there was no difference between a Pirate and a Nintendo cart, but I really wanted the original with the box and manual but pay between 70 to 75 dollars back in 1993 and 1994 was ridiculous.


----------



## LDAsh (Apr 30, 2013)

> LDAsh, you need to read the opening post to understand what's being discussed.


I read your post thoroughly but I'm talking about _this world_ specifically where developing a full and substantial game and getting it into the hands of players takes a little something known as "money", and if this is not the case then feel free to enlighten me further.  I'd be looking for tangible examples and not pages and pages of fantastical theories.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> Foxi, you don't make a logical argument by asserting things and then not sourcing them. Yes, history does need to be sourced, especially when you're making a point. I sourced mine and continue to source it, I ask for the same courtesy.


Au contraire - my argument is very logical from a mathematical point of view.

You claim that money is the direct cause of U.S.S.R's downfall and I claim that it is not on the basis of money being used world-wide and not causing the downfall of other countries or unions. By definition, the use of currency is not the cause of U.S.S.R's downfall - if it was, all countries which used currency at the time would also collapse and they didn't - how is that not logical? You insist on programming-like accuracy and I give it to you - if you put those terms into variables, you have the variable "Money" and the variable "System" - in the case of the West, the result is 0 - its downfall is _"false"_, in the case of the U.S.S.R, the downfall is _"true"_ - in this scenario, the only possible values are _"0"_ for the Money and _"1"_ for the Communist/Socialist system:


```
#define Money 0
#define System_1 0
#define System_2 1
 
bool West = Money + System_1; //= false, 0 + 0 = 0
bool East = Money + System_2; //= true, 0 + 1 = 1
```
 
This is literally the only scenario where the outcome of the calculation equals the real-life outcome, ergo it must be correct. I'm only showing this because of your apparent fondness of programming - how can you wish to defy the very binary logic you glorify so much?

As for the historical sources necessary for me to validate my point, I'm pretty sure of what I'm talking about because I _live_ in a country which used to be under Soviet domain - I experience the direct, long-term results of Communism and Socialism on a daily basis - it was a terrible system of distribution that kept everyone without _"connections"_ in queues which stretched for days. More often than not, goods didn't even reach store shelves and the only two things you could count on buying were matches and vinegar, everything else required government stamps or permits - a new kind of grey market emerged where people traded the stamps or permits among each other _just like currency_ because currency meant _nothing_ if you couldn't buy anything for it. Trust me,_ I know_. To this day we pay the price - many areas of our economy and infrastructure are a decade behind the times although we're doing our best to catch up. Communism did one thing and one thing only - pillaged our resources for the benefit of the Kremlin. It claimed that everyone was equal, but that was not true - there is a saying from those times here, it goes _"there are the equal and the MORE equal"_, which roughly translates that you were only equal if you had working class roots and were a member of the Party, preferably a politician or a government official, alternatively a member of the Militia - if you weren't, _tough luck, you're not getting a whole lot of them stamps._ It _did not work_, it caused _civil unrest_, the distribution was _uneven_, it _killed the industry_ and that's why the system _fell_.


----------



## Wolvenreign (Apr 30, 2013)

Edit 1: Post may be of poor quality due to lack of sleep. Re-examination due for tomorrow.



Foxi4 said:


> Au contraire - my argument is very logical from a mathematical point of view.
> 
> You claim that money is the direct cause of U.S.S.R's downfall and I claim that it is not on the basis of money being used world-wide and not causing the downfall of other countries or unions. By definition, the use of currency is not the cause of U.S.S.R's downfall - if it was, all countries which used currency at the time would also collapse and they didn't - how is that not logical? You insist on programming-like accuracy and I give it to you - if you put those terms into variables, you have the variable "Money" and the variable "System" - in the case of the West, the result is 0 - its downfall is _"false"_, in the case of the U.S.S.R, the downfall is _"true"_ - in this scenario, the only possible values are _"0"_ for the Money and _"1"_ for the Communist/Socialist system:
> 
> ...


 
First, that's a false analogy. My so-called "love of programming" is not analogous to a love of purely binary logic, nor it is something that I use purely. Indeed, I cited xist for a logical fallacy on that very subject, the false dichotomy.

The actual source of my desire for programming is in using an AI to ensure a total lack of corruption; a system monitored by all humans at all times (though obviously not everyone can watch it every moment).

Second, this sentence



> By definition, the use of currency is not the cause of U.S.S.R's downfall - if it was, all countries which used currency at the time would also collapse and they didn't - how is that not logical?


 
which you base the rest of your logic on, tells me that you didn't read or comprehend the rest of my post at all. I was speaking about how only certain conditions, such as a free market which uses planned obsolescence and other means to "balance" it's production levels, will actually sustain an economy which is based on commodity and trade. Essentially, a monetary economy cannot function in equally shared and enforced scarcity because it chokes trade.

Plus, get this; as I have been saying from the beginning, communism and a resource based economy are not anywhere near the same thing. Communism is an equal distribution of commodity; a resource based economy is the shared global ownership of all the Earth's resources to all humans. It goes back to the difference between commodity and resource.

I think what you really misunderstand is this, and feel free to read it as many times as you need to until you understand it; communism used money. Money does not represent resource, only commodity. Communism is not analogous to a resource based economy.

Just out of curiosity on this one; what do you think is going to happen to the market economy when every single menial job is automated for cheaper than even the most exploited of human beings? Do you think people will still have any sort of purchasing power? This is just one of the reasons that money becomes irrelevant with an increase in technology, and no amount of wasting goods or resources will ever make the world hospitable to money again. Besides, it's not like money is sacred. It's just a way things WERE done. It used to be that doctors didn't wash their hands between surgeries, but we gave that up because it caused problems in the form of disease. When science gives us a better answer, we should just take it. No fuss, no muss.

I would appreciate it if you actually read what was being proposed on www.thevenusproject.com and not jump to conclusions about what it is. Maybe when you actually cite things that they say, and provide the full context for it, I can address any comparisons to communism or the failed systems of the USSR.



> As for the historical sources necessary for me to validate my point, I'm pretty sure of what I'm talking about because I _live_ in a country which used to be under Soviet domain - I experience the direct, long-term results of Communism and Socialism on a daily basis - it was a terrible system of distribution that kept everyone without _"connections"_ in queues which stretched for days. More often than not, goods didn't even reach store shelves and the only two things you could count on buying were matches and vinegar, everything else required government stamps or permits - a new kind of grey market emerged where people traded the stamps or permits among each other _just like currency_ because currency meant _nothing_ if you couldn't buy anything for it. Trust me,_ I know_. To this day we pay the price - many areas of our economy and infrastructure are a decade behind the times although we're doing our best to catch up. Communism did one thing and one thing only - pillaged our resources for the benefit of the Kremlin. It claimed that everyone was equal, but that was not true - there is a saying from those times here, it goes _"there are the equal and the MORE equal"_, which roughly translates that you were only equal if you had working class roots and were a member of the Party, preferably a politician or a government official, alternatively a member of the Militia - if you weren't, _tough luck, you're not getting a whole lot of them stamps._ It _did not work_, it caused _civil unrest_, the distribution was _uneven_, it _killed the industry_ and that's why the system _fell_.


 
You cite anecdotal evidence, which is not valid for points based on history or any sort of objective. I'm not going to trust you just because you say "I know". That isn't how the truth is determined to the best of our knowledge; it is taking what any given person says at face value.

If you really have a point to prove here, it shouldn't be too hard to cite actual historical research. And if you're too lazy to do that, then you're too lazy to contribute to this conversation in any meaningful way. Same goes for if you don't have enough time. (Not saying you have said that, but I felt it was worth mentioning).

Also worth mentioning is that anyone who has skimmed this conversation or the threads so far has robbed themselves of a complete understanding of the arguments at hand, and has blinded themselves en route. It bears repeating; _do not skim_. Read everything, read it twice if you have to, and then respond.



LDAsh said:


> I read your post thoroughly but I'm talking about _this world_ specifically where developing a full and substantial game and getting it into the hands of players takes a little something known as "money", and if this is not the case then feel free to enlighten me further. I'd be looking for tangible examples and not pages and pages of fantastical theories.


It depends on your definition of "substantial". If your definition of "substantial" is "anything that was paid for" (it's unlikely that you are), then you're creating a circular argument.
On the other hand, if you can consider games like Black Mesa, a huge fan project to remake Half Life 1 as substantial, there's one example. This link has a bunch more. I'm positive there's more, but I'll drum them up tomorrow after I get some sleep.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2013)

I take it that me physically living in a post-soviet state and being familiar with its problems due to experiencing them first-hand is nothing compared to your knowledge of the communist reality when not living in a soviet state or anywhere near one. Alright then, I can throw links at you as well in my spare time but you have to understand that you are on the losing position here simply because you cannot go blindly againts history - Soviet states fell and democratic ones did not, and the reasons why can be plainly seen in the formerly divided Germany. The post-soviet side of the country is infinitely less developed than its western counterpart and it is physical proof of my line of reasoning - the Communist distribution system gave the good end of the stick to the Kremlin and the shit end to everybody else - this is historical fact. This experience taught us that an equilibrium between vastly different classes on the basis of resource-based contribution is not possible to achieve. On one end, you focus on the intellectuals who in your model vote, on the other you stress the real value of natural resources which the intellectuals contribute none of as the fruits of their work are not material and in your model worthless. This is a glaring contrast - how are you going to deal with it? Typing on mobile, so sorry for typos and lack of paragraphs.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Apr 30, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> Plus, get this; as I have been saying from the beginning, communism and a resource based economy are not anywhere near the same thing. Communism is an equal distribution of commodity; a resource based economy is the shared global ownership of all the Earth's resources to all humans.


And since we've achieved world piece, and all countries of the world are completely friendly with each other, I'm sure sharing resources will be no problem at all. 



Wolvenreign said:


> I think what you really misunderstand is this, and feel free to read it as many times as you need to until you understand it; communism used money.


What are you talking about?  Communism eventually involves ending the use of currency.



Wolvenreign said:


> Money does not represent resource, only commodity. Communism is not analogous to a resource based economy.


Perhaps you (and I don't mean anybody else, I want the OP's answer) could give us clear definitions of resources and commodities.



Wolvenreign said:


> Just out of curiosity on this one; what do you think is going to happen to the market economy when every single menial job is automated for cheaper than even the most exploited of human beings? Do you think people will still have any sort of purchasing power?


If we get to the point where machines run everything, we'll need to start preparing for the Reapers since our cycle is coming to an end. 

Regardless of whether there is money, electronics will still be a near essential part of our lives.



Wolvenreign said:


> Besides, it's not like money is sacred. It's just a way things WERE done. It used to be that doctors didn't wash their hands between surgeries, but we gave that up because it caused problems in the form of disease. When science gives us a better answer, we should just take it. No fuss, no muss.


Maybe if science provides us with an alternative to money that isn't ridiculous, we'll consider it.


----------



## Sop (Apr 30, 2013)

Wolvenreign brings world peace, all hail Wolvenreign.


----------



## xist (Apr 30, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> This distinction between making something for yourself and making something for everyone disappears when replication reaches the point of total abundance, and all that is left is ambition. Regardless of whether you wanted to do it for yourself or for the world, you still do it, and you still upload your work to the rest of the world. Do you know when this stops? When money gets in the way.
> 
> And as far as "experience of real life and observations of people in the public and private sectors" goes, this is citing of anecdotal evidence, and as you can see from the link, it is illogical.


 
By your own terms your first point is just your opinion and your second is a misconception based on lack of experience. Are you intimately familiar with the welfare state in other countries? Because i can tell you that unless i have a pretty big influence in the reporting of the news and the compilation of DWP statistics then ambition and drive is not a universal attribute.





Wolvenreign said:


> You assume that the video cannot be evidence, when it is, in fact, a compilation of evidence that produces a case. You are a figurative blind man because you cannot watch this compilation of evidence.


 
No i argue that your point rests upon this being something that is subject to "_careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor_." Yet that doesn't go beyond making a video. No critical research, no extant communes or even cults, no peer reviewed evidence. Nothing...just a video.

"_careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor_."
Regardless, I will now link to the study the video refers to. As for the video on the front page of the Venus Project website, Paradise or Oblivion, that is merely a summation of the information provided on www.thevenusproject.com, so you have every opportunity to determine what you're attacking ACTUALLY is compared to what you think it is. When you are able to cease throwing (perhaps unintentional, but still uninformed) straw men, we can move this conversation forward with my actual position.[/quote]

Nope, i agree with that study, although i don't see it proving your point. The psychology behind anything given to excess removes impetus to achieve anything...however rewards are demonstrably able to promote better results. Additionally that's is NOT an independent study....at this point the fact that you link to that as evidence concerns me.



Wolvenreign said:


> This is, by the way, in stark contrast to how you have not linked to anything in any of your posts, or sourced any of your claims thus far, period.


 
As you're so fond of stating...the burden of proof lies upon you to persuade others. You have not provided a SINGLE link to a scientific journal or example of this process in action despite my repeated desire to read a JOURNAL report that has been published and reviewed by the wider community. Additionally any points i've made that you can't answer you gloss over completely to provide your own spin....see pictures of the Earth or Indiana Jones.




Wolvenreign said:


> Once again, you have clearly demonstrated your lack of ability to read what is written and discuss my actual position. I had very, very clearly stated in my first post that a resource based economy is not barter, which is what you seem to think it is.


 
Once again you're insulting. Your actual position appears to disregard personal freedoms to choose in favour of global freedoms. Humanity demonstrably doesn't behave in that way. Just because something has no resource value doesn't make it valueless...we are able to attribute value to things via financial means. It's not a perfect system but it works.





Wolvenreign said:


> You know, I would think that after all of these posts that you've made and all the times I've asked you to read my posts thoroughly, you would have actually researched the position and ceased to skim. It really would make for a much more efficient conversation.


 
No what would make an efficient conversation would be if you didn't blithely ignore the reality of imposing this system upon the world and points that contradict your argument and start a topic based upon the title you did.



Wolvenreign said:


> A resource based economy, as envisioned by the Venus Project and what I refer to when I use the term, would have never been possible in the middle ages. It makes use of technology not available at the time, and uses a worldview that virtually no one had then, that being that the Earth and the resources available to us were finite. Not to mention that you make a huge historical claim about the soviet union without backing it up, which is just another instance of your failure to meet your burden of proof. I will tally what burdens of proof you have to meet at the end of this post.


 
Wow you're insulting.....historical evidence backs up my point (as does Foxi) and if you check your claims i'm pretty certain they link to a single (non-published, non-reviewed) internet article. Yes it fits your point to believe that you have backed everything up but you've provided absolutely no evidence to back up any of your claims. When you actually provide some proper research that this form of social change is possible and how it should be implemented then a discussion can be made. Picking random articles that don't have any weight and back up little bits of your point isn't enough. Additionally regarding the USSR - an economic collapse can't occur without some form of monetary system. It's farcical to say that money caused the economic collapse...

And yes it would have been possible in the Middlge Ages, albeit on a much smaller scale. The fact that you refuse to see these micro-examples or even demonstrate one shows the flaw in your system. Living standards and resources at that time would fundamentally make the situation you describe that much easier.




Wolvenreign said:


> A Technocracy does not "boil down" to a meritocracy. There are vastly many more intricacies in how it is built and how it functions, inherent in it's engineered design and scientific principles. The only thing that is "boiled down" here is your understanding of it, which I can only presume came from your apparently chronic habit of skimming.


 
Insulting. Assumption.













Wolvenreign said:


> Which is why it belongs in a museum for everyone to observe and grant historical contact with, not made equivalent to something that can feed and house hundreds of other people and traded as such.


 
And yet what if some private owner purchases said object injecting money into good causes and puts the item on display (as demonstrated by the private ownership of many historic buildings such as Hever Castle). There's no reason that objects cannot lie in both realms.




Wolvenreign said:


> So what you're telling me is that it's crazy to think that wasting a vast amount of resources produces a vast amount of waste, and that it's utterly insane to think that a process which wastes resources at an unsustainable rate on a finite planet in which we don't even measure how many resources we have left will result in those resources being scarce to zilch. As far as recognizing that strategies adapt to evolve and deal with prevailing political and economic changes, that is more or less precisely what I'm advocating for, which is to say that the only real solution to not wasting all of our resources is to see how much we have left, how much we're using, and how we can improve it's usage. It's just basic logic when approaching a finite set of necessary resources. Survival, if you will.


 
Are the resources that were in common use 500 years ago the resources we use today?



Wolvenreign said:


> Oh, and I'll let your "tin foil hat" comment stand on it's own as a perfect picture of the mindset you bring to each and every post that you have made in this conversation. Your stereotyping and unfounded presumptions about my stance color your perception and cause you to be entirely disabled in arriving at a real, rational conclusion using evidence and reason.


 
Still waiting on the evidence. Your whole point rests (perhaps because of the way you start the topic) on the evils of the monetary system. Thus far you've skimmed over or ignored any difficult points about providing proof for your argument. Equating trade or living conditions in areas of different parts of the world?(where value and relative worth of certain objects differ? Nothing) You have provided NO proof of the form you advocate - "_careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor_." None.
"_careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor_."




Wolvenreign said:


> It seems you have managed to combine three logical fallacies; that of argument from authority, anecdotal evidence, and yet another failure to meet your burden of proof. No, I don't trust you just because you assert that you have two science degrees. Plus, I would think that someone with two science degrees would do a better job at researching his opponent's position and meeting his own burdens of proof, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have them. Not that it matters as long as your logic is faulty, of course.


 
At this point you lose me with your puerile condescension. Rather than engaging in discourse you lower yourself to insufferable. I'll finish this post but after this don't even bother replying because you're obviously unable to adjust your views or provide decent answers to points raised against you, nor are you able to provide cogent explanations.




Wolvenreign said:


> The specific burden of proof I refer to is that these projects are going on. So one more for the tally.


 
Projects? Ok where are there two or three communities living in this way at the moment?



Wolvenreign said:


> We need to abolish, or rather, stop, a process that demonstrably produces a vast amount of waste, and doing it better means not giving two rips about the profit motive and placing conservation and wise use of our resources as our top priority.


 
Planned obsolescence is a terrible idea but as someone arguing from a technological standpoint you seem to ignore the rate of growth and advancement that goes on because of it. Technology constantly advances and evolves and the push for newer, better, more efficient is buoyed by that drive for the next best thing to outwit the competitor. I don't disagree that it'd be nice to eliminate it entirely as it has a negative impact but equally, without it the push for new developments would diminish.



Wolvenreign said:


> I don't insult subtly. You will know if I'm insulting you, because I will actually go out of my way to do it. It would be in your best interest to not assume that this is the case until it is explicit.


 
I've noticed. You're just generally insulting.

My point was that you continue to ignore my very clear statements about what a resource based economy is, as you have once more. If you find it insulting that I continue to point this out, I would suggest that a good solution is to actually do your research and address my real position.



Wolvenreign said:


> This also goes for your assertion about removing an individual's desire and your assertion about everyone wanting to contribute being idealistic. You provide another logical fallacy in the form of an argument by assertion in merely asserting that it isn't realistic. Besides, it is hardly a binary state of affairs, which means you have committed yet another logical fallacy in the false dichotomy. Science often deals in what is not real *yet*, and it is known as the_ hypothetical _or the _theoretical_, depending on it's status as a hypothesis or a theory.


 
See social welfare systems in countries outside of the US. Additionally see Disability status changes pending investigation and verification.





Wolvenreign said:


> Given that we have a finite amount of resources and that they are being rapidly depleted by a profit motive incentive, why do you need a peer reviewed study to tell you that it will eventually run dry much faster than measuring them and watching it's depletion rate would cause it to? Should it not be patently obvious that a continued, sped-up drain on a finite pool will eventually run it dry? Why wouldn't it, exactly? What properties about the profit motive will absolutely ensure that we never run out of resources as long as it is profitable to keep draining and wasting them?


 
Why can't _you_ provide one with your scientific and experimental rigour? Why can't you illustrate that as demands reach critical limits (or potential red zones) society and science doesn't explore new avenues but instead crumbles under the inability to use new techniques or methods. As i've said before the resource of today is not equivalent to the resource of tomorrow.





Wolvenreign said:


> Burden 1: Prove that the Soviet Union collapsed in the way you said it did.


Not even necessary...go read a history book or see Comrade Foxi's reply from earlier.



Wolvenreign said:


> Burden 2: Prove that this future-proofing you speak of is happening.


Holy crap? Are you not aware of constant new discoveries and their applications? Take graphene for example and it's superior conduction and supportive abilities. Or the potential microwave transmission of solar energy harvested from the moon. We don't just stop looking for alternatives...you know that technology is always looking for alternatives...why are you ignoring the point?



Wolvenreign said:


> Burden 3: Human ethology agrees that mankind has always achieved more when spurred on to succeed. Actually, kind of that entire paragraph.


 
Success breeds superior results...just think of it in simple terms of a hunter-gatherer tribe who decided to move away from growing food and try taking on the aggressive fauna instead. It's a higher risk but the rewards are greater.



Wolvenreign said:


> (P.S. Hopefully the training you received from those two science degrees will help you.)


 
You know what, any chance of me replying to you ever again evaporated (or even reading your opinion based pleas). You're a condescending, patronising and somewhat naive person. Good luck with that, although congrats for warranting me ignoring you (and i didn't even ignore Valwin and i thought he was a massive moron)


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2013)

Comrade Foxi?!? 

...it has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 30, 2013)

I've been reading through this thread, thank you Wolvenreign for new insights.

xist shows he is emotionally invested in this topic. For one thing, it can be clearly seen with his use of shaming tactics. Logic does not work on emotions. xist feels insulted and no amount of logic will never pierce through. The problem is that xist himself holds no control over his emotions so no amount of debate or discussion will ever convince him to feel different, much less think different.

Just look at this post from xist:



xist said:


> You know what, any chance of me replying to you ever again evaporated (or even reading your opinion based pleas). You're a condescending, patronising and somewhat naive person. Good luck with that, although congrats for warranting me ignoring you (and i didn't even ignore Valwin and i thought he was a massive moron)


 
No amount of logic will work with people who reply like this. If you do try to use logic, you will waste your time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 30, 2013)

Stingart said:


> No amount of logic will work with people who reply like this. If you do try to use logic, you will waste your time.


If you want to play the logic card, beware of the consequences. For example, the OP presents a peculiar view on the downfall of the countries of the Eastern block which xist and myself find to be pulled straight out of OP's arse, and yet we face a demand for presenting historical evidence to prove that we are right when for all intents and purposes, it is the OP who should present arguments backing up his case. In other words, he "cleverly" misplaces the burden of proof on the oposing party along the lines of "I am right until you prove me wrong" - logic works the other way around.


----------



## xist (Apr 30, 2013)

Stingart said:


> No amount of logic will work with people who reply like this. If you do try to use logic, you will waste your time.


 
Actually i don't think anyone likes being insulted by someone who ignores flaws in their argument and despite apparently coming from a point of view backed by rigorous testing cannot actually produce any published work backing up their complete argument (rather than bite sized chunks). Trawling the internet for random articles that fit your point of view and sponsored research does not a logical argument make.


----------



## YamiHoshi.nl (Apr 30, 2013)

It's a circle:
Lack of money results into Piracy.
Piracy results into prices to be high.
High prices results into Piracy.
Piracy results into higher prices.
Etc.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 2, 2013)

maxlwin536 said:


> <snip>


In other words, stop even trying to ease your conscience, and be honest with yourself about being a law-breaking asshole who does whatever he/she wants with no concern for morality whatsoever? Seems legit.

I jest... half jesting, anyway.


----------



## Ubuntuの刀 (May 2, 2013)

raulpica, I said 2 cuss words. Why the fuck would you remove it because of 2 cuss words...


----------



## Gahars (May 2, 2013)

maxlwin536 said:


> raulpica, I said 2 cuss words. Why the fuck would you remove it because of 2 cuss words...


 
If you wanna hang with us, I don't wanna hear you cuss. Don't cuss.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 2, 2013)

maxlwin536 said:


> raulpica, I said 2 cuss words. Why the fuck would you remove it because of 2 cuss words...


You didn't meet the minimum number of cuss words.  You should post a ton of cuss words and I'm sure the staff will forgive you for your slip up.


----------



## The Milkman (May 3, 2013)

I actually agree, Society SHOULD be based on these ideas, but if it was, we would lack many of these things that would permit us to even think of an idea like this. Now, im not one of ya'll big city nerds *pulls suspenders* but it seems to me that were all forgetting what drove mankind to do all hes done. Reward. 

Now, now, I know someone will be in that crowd shoutin' "But Milkman, this would benefit mankind all together! Everyone would be truly equal!" well thats true, just like pre-history, when we decided to form small communities, and use those communities to create things like language and farming. To establish order, in a chaotic world. However, pre-history is nice and all to look at, seeing how its pretty much the historians Sandbox and the Scientists battleground. But, if you look at history itself, almost every single innovation, invention, discovery, and whatever other long word you Google up so you guys sound smarter, has been fueled either by conflict, or money. Especially post-colonial age. 

While, im not too clear on the big stuff, like Cars or computers or planes. Look at things like your phone. The reason its not the size of of a textbook anymore is due to a combination of adding as many gimmicks into something to attract the consumer, and military innovated technology. The GPS in that phone was made by the military. Its bluetooth made by Ericsson mobile. Now look at it. All that healthy competition has changed this:






To this:






All in the name of money.

Im not saying its not also a BAD thing, it does indeed take food from the hungry, keep health from the sick, and yes, keep us all from getting bits of data that can be infinity replicated or even recreated for free.

However, I would think that since its helped MUCH more then its harmed, the hungry would NEVER be able to be fed if we didnt innovate in farmming technologies, even the healthy would die faster then expected if we didnt create things like penicillin, and you sure as hell wouldnt have a computer to spread an idea like this if we were content with paintings on a wall.

To say we have accened above the use of currency, is to say we have created all we can EVER create. Seeing how were still behind on many of things past generations thought we would have, never the less things we will one day be able to do that we cant imagine now, without a doubt, we can only become better with money by our side.


----------



## The Milkman (May 3, 2013)

Aw man, stupid new GBAtemp >_>


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (May 3, 2013)

This was well written and thought-inducing.

I stopped pirating when most DS developers turned to shovelware for money, and for the last few years I have been buying physical copies. I personally find that the quality when playing games increases when you pay for it. When you are buying a game, you want to make a good investment in your money so you only get games you'll _really_ like. When you pirate, rather, you just don't care and get "all the gaems", and only find an odd gem or two every now and again. But that could just be me.

You're really only "chained" when you lose your self-control, so my advice is whether you're buying or pirating a game, just ask yourself "Do I really want it?".


----------



## Wolvenreign (May 3, 2013)

Yo, guys, response coming SOON. I've been busy these last few days.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 3, 2013)

Wolvenreign said:


> Yo, guys, response coming SOON. I've been busy these last few days.


I'll grab the popcorn.


----------



## The Milkman (May 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> I'll grab the popcorn.



Come on man, thats un-called for.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> I'll grab the popcorn.


Make sure you pee before the movie post, I hear it's going to be a long one.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 3, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Come on man, thats un-called for.


Why? He makes long posts, and I jest.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (May 3, 2013)

*scrolled all the way to the bottom before reading it*

yup. good stuff.


----------



## narutofan777 (May 3, 2013)

i have never bought a song or album in my life. youtube all day son.. come at me bruh.


----------



## Xuphor (May 3, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> i have never bought a song or album in my life. youtube all day son.. come at me bruh.


That's not illegal dude. This thread talks about torrents, newsgroups, and other illegal pirating methods.

Watching some song on Youtube is legal, as it counts as "fair use". You can check Youtube's TOS about that.
Now, if you use one of those youtube to mp3 websites and convert a youtube song video into a mp3, THAT is illegal.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 4, 2013)

I'm pretty sure he was joking, dude...


----------



## Gahars (May 4, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> I'm pretty sure he was joking, dude...


 
This is narutofan we're talking about here. I think you give him too much credit.


----------



## Chary (May 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> This is narutofan we're talking about here. I think you give him too much credit.


But he has three 7's in his username! How can we NOT give him too much credit?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 4, 2013)

Xuphor said:


> That's not illegal dude.


That's actually not true in 99% of cases, which is why Youtube gets a few trucks of copyright infringement claims and removal requests on a daily basis and why people's videos with copyrighted content go offline. Fair Use doesn't cover blatant copyright infringement or straight-up illegal sharing of media - you can upload your own music and set it to Private if you want to, but if you set the video to Public with the obvious intention of sharing the song, you do so at your own peril.


----------



## totalnoob617 (May 4, 2013)

media companies are fucking parasites, dont give them another single sheckle ,it wont go to the developers who actually create the content , only to the tribe of monopolistic middle man parasites who control the industry and leech off other people creativity and prey on consumers gullibility

stop being so fucking stupid and  naive  with your concerns over "piwacy"


----------



## gokujr1000 (May 4, 2013)

I didn't read this thread and I'm okay in admitting that.

Now that I've cleared that up is this just another thread trying to make it seem like Piracy doesn't hurt anyone?


----------

