Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

I never said resources wll ceise to exist. The entire world and hense all it's inhabitants are reliant upon them The difference between the current system of resource management and that as envisioned by The Venus Project is that the current system is based upon money and commerce controlling resources. In the Resource-Based Economy, it is based on a systems approach of resource management utilising realtime feedback from global sensors in constant monitoring of the resources we have.



In the transition, yes, bu that is a matter of value systems. People in our current society, are taught to quantify the value and validity of their identities by what they have. In the future, we will feel the privilage of contributing to society simply because it feels good to do so. As for the issue of what they deserve, EVERYONE deserves access to clean energy, food, water, shelter and all the necessities of life. It is simple logic.



I disagree. Why bite the hand that feeds you? Especially if it doesn't make you feel you have to earn the necessities of life "by the sweat of your brow" and doesn't deliberately dumb you down with vain entertainment and distorted value systems that encourage you to want to buy things that you don't even need.

The reason why people display apathy, laziness and rebellion is a sub-conscious rejection of what is expected of them in order to survive. If the system TRULY has their interets in mind, it will take care of ALL the world's people, not favouring anyone, or rejecting others.



Machines do not "spoon feed" people in this proposed ideal. We developed technology in the first place to free us. We developed cars so we could travel faster than our feet can manage. We developed calculators so we wouldn't have to make mental calculations. We developed elevators to free us from the chore of stairs. Some, like the less able bodied and physically disabled would consider an elevator a new lease of life. Enabling them to get to places that would be physically impossible.

And we are overlooking the marvel of life support machines. Would you call someone who through no fault of their own has been forced to rely on a machine to keep them alive, greedy?



In a lot of ways, you are correct. The fact that the planet is being plundered for oil for means that do extreme harm to our bodies and the environment, the fact that the mounting international debts that are rising beyond control and the inevitable "sword of damocles" situation, and the fact that the ridiculous pursuit of more and more aggressive means of nuclear weaponry and defence shows that we HAVE to move in a different direction. And I fear for the consequences if we do nothing to avert it.



The ideas I have proposed are not concerning a singular machine, but more the implementation of a more embracing principle of machine automation. We already trust our very lives to machines with the task of building cars.

The automation is not a means for us to "get along". It is the optimal means for resource management. Machines DO NOT control people. With the implementation of widespread machine automation to eliminate jobs that no-one wnats to do, in conjunction with a RELEVANT approach to education and values, we create a world of DRASTICALLY reduced stress and hightened compassion and understanding for our fellow human beings.

Machines are not corrupt. They have no feelings. To use an example Jacque Fresco used, If you smash one laptop in front of a group of 10 nother laptops, those 10 laptops won't care for vengence or compassion.

Humans on the other hand DO have the capacity for corruption. Especially if they live in a system that rewards corruption. For example:

Hospital chairmen getting multi-million pound pay-offs for gross negligence

A Wal-Mart store muscling in on local commerce and businesses to make profits

Corporations dumping waste products, killing wildlife and natural beauty coz it saves money

A man mugging a pensioner because he can acquire her money

I can go on, and on.

Communist talking points? Are you saying that anything that rejects, or at least shows negative atributes to the monetary system must be communist? That is a rather silly notion to have. It is a shallow duality that is taught in the system. If you are not a patriot, you are a coward. If you are not a democrat, you are a communist. If you are not good, you are evil. Religion has done it's job well to create in the minds of the people these erroneous absolutes that you must have to pick a side and hope that the side you pick has the majority vote.



Well I would have got to this MUCH earlier if you and AG hadn't wished to indulge your urge to debate the current system, demanding me to act as your patsy and fuel your egos.



I feel I have spent enough time discussing what is wrong with the current system, coz both of you have admitted you are fully intent on rejecting any idea I have, I on the other hand find it exhilerating to discuss the proposals of The Venus Project. It is not a case of being right or wrong. I am here to discuss ideas.



No. I am saying a cybernated system will be used for resource management. The idea of the distiction "economy" will consequently become something very different to what we know today. Today we equate "the economy" as the overarching institution of commerce and industry. The umbrealla that encompasses everything that is contained. In the future, we will consider ourselves as human beings who are free individuals who need not worry about how we are to acquire what we need for survival, and in fact, will be motivated to learn and think and contribute to the system's and hense the world's betterment.



Taking into consideration that the cybernated system, equiped with sensors all over the globe monitoring the emergent and symbiotic state of the resources at our disposal, I would have thought the algorithm would be self evident.

Using the scientific method not just in resource management, but in all walks of life, we as human beings alone have been able to reep the benefits of critical thinking and fortuitous endeavours.

Communist talking points as in the arguments you are using have significant similarities to those underlying communist ideas.

I don't think dualism is needed to equate the ideas.


Or you could have gotten to this MUCH earlier if you had just provided more details.


Ok, but discussing includes evaluating.


Cybernate is basically "run by computer".

cy·ber·nate (sbr-nt)
tr.v. cy·ber·nat·ed, cy·ber·nat·ing, cy·ber·nates
"To control (an industrial process) by computer."

"Economy" always becomes different from what we think at a given point in time. In any case, you really don't say much here. Resource management is the major problem of economics. So, saying that that a system controlled by a computer will be used to handle resource management pretty easily becomes equivalent to "A computer will run the economy".


Umm...... no. I don't think you know how these things work. No matter how much data you have, you need systems to process this data to make it useful and to come to any kind of conclusion, and given that a lot of estimations are likely going to be necessary, it also seems kind of clear that some biases in the computer conclusion also have to given as inputs.


Saying "let the computer do it" isn't anything about the scientific method. In fact, the scientific method should be a matter of trial and error, and part of the issue here is that there is no basis to do trial and error on a large economic problem, at least not without screwing with people's lives quite a bit.

The scientific method is the foundational principle. And what you don't realise is that the "trial and error" that you refer to is ALREADY being done today. Where machine automation utilises redundency and realtime feedback processes are implemented on a smaller scale. Think about it. You don't build a world upon the functionality of the first piece of technology ever developed. You test it through statistical analysis and tried and tested methods of mechanical and functional utility.

Here are the facts of the matter.

We ARE slowly moving in this direction. For 2 main reasons. I will provide more when I have more time, but I gotta be up for work in 5 hours.

1. Technological unemployemnt is the term used to describe how techn ological advancements, which are a natural and intelligent progression of efficiency, are replacing human jobs in the labour force. Is this something to be scared of? Of course not. What do you think we developed technology for in the first place? To free us from a particular chore or problem. The definition of the word "machine" is a "labour saving device". And technology is not terminologically confined to electronics and machinery. Technology started with tools such as spearheads to hunt animals for food. The reason we have grown to fear machines is because our economy is ENTIRELY and yes, I mean ENTIRELY dependant upon us as human beings offering our labour and skills as a commodity on the open market. These are both traded for our purchasing power to cover our costs of living, and also to buy material goods in order to keep the economy going. And this process is now being put into obcoletion by machine automation.

That and hollywood has revelled in the fact that they have propogated the false fantasy that any self aware form of machine life will be malevolent and homicidal. This is ridiculous. For the fact stands with ANY form of life, that the more intelligent it is, the more co-operative it is. That is unless it has constructed a framework of scarcity around it that forces it to compete with it's own kind for survival.

Even The Terminator film series acknowledges that it was not Skynet that was the initial aggressors to the conflict. It stands to reason that if there ever WAS a war between man and machine, we all know who would have started it.

2. Human Altruism

More people are pursuing voluntary work than any time in history. This is born not out of a vain need to impress, but out of a general altruism.

Think about what sort of things you would think of in order to impress a boss at a job interview. I know from my experience and from asking people's advice on the sort of things to say and the sort of things to think of, there was one principle that always seemed to crop up. The idea that helping others made you feel good about yourself. You would proclaim in the interview that you drew pleasure from helping people, not knowing whether you really meant it for yourself personally, but knowing that it was a worthy and commendable principle to have, and that saying it would "get you in their good books" and hopefully get you the job, because when it comes down to it, we can all agree that when it comes to a job interview, employers want to hear certain things in order to convince them you are suitable for the position. You cannot demonstrate your competency in an interview. You have to win them over with things they want to hear.

And that is the point. Why do we claim to have such an altruistic principle amongst our arsenal of mentalities when it comes to applying for a job, but not apply it to day-to-day living? Why not consider this as a true, humane incentive system? Considering the proposals of The Venus Project, where goods and services RELEVANT to your survival are available without debt or servitude, THIS would be the incentive system. You would not be doing what you do because you feel you have to, you would be doing what you do, because you WANT to. And not because of reward so you can either sustain yourself and your family, or to satisfy material desires, because what would be the point? When you have ACCESS to the necessities of life because the resources of the planet are COMMON HERITAGE OF ALL humankind, the ONLY incentive can be the betterment of ALL humanity.

And that is what The Venus Project is all about.

No. I am saying that your rhetoric is very, very similar to what I see coming from communists. You say we must undergo a shift in value systems and people will be trained to have the new, better values and will voluntarily contribute to society simply because they want to. This is virtually identical to what communists say. Several of your other points also show similarities to Communist arguments.


Um... the whole thread, we've been asking you to bring out details of this system. That you waited 10 pages to do so reflects far more on you than it does on us


Quote either of us on this. Neither of us have said anything of the sort.


That is exactly synonymous to my description, unless you use a very different version of the English language than I do.


You say this as though you expect the Venus Project will actually be successful. I find that mildly amusing.


Really? Self evident? That is quite a bold claim. All right then, give us a rough sketch of what the program would look like. Surely someone at Venus Project has at least begun work on software development for this system? Is there source code available we could look at? If not, a basic flow chart should probably be able to convey the general idea.


Talking about "scientific method" in this sort of context is another trademark Communist rhetorical strategy. Anyways, how many Venus Project leaders have a significant background in the sciences? I don't see droves of physicists or biologists backing this program, and it tends to raise serious red flags for me when non-scientific people talk about using the "scientific method." Most people without specialized training are still in the 19th century (at best) when it comes to understanding science.

Like I said before, so? Here's the bare bones of it. As I have explained before, ideas are just ideas. They don't come into existance with labels on them. That is because they are accumilative constructs of the human brain's functioning. Anyone can have an idea. Good or bad, only depends on it's scope, means of implementation and it's results.

Take the BNP for example. A group who I don't particularly care for. Not that I care for ANY political party, but lets use them as an example. As a whole they can be classified as a hate group. However if you look at some of their ideas in isolation as ideas unto themselves, they can actually have some validity.

Take for example the BNP's stance on the NHS. As an employee of the NHS I think that PART of that idea IN ISOLATION is a good one.

However once seen as part of the overarching manifesto of the BNP, the idea automatically for some reason becomes a "Nazi" idea by association. Now taking into consideration I agree with part of a policy, that doesn't make either the idea itself, or me, a nazi, does it?

Ideas are just ideas, and so what if as far as you are concerned it sounds "very, very similar to what I see coming from communists"? So what? That is just you saying it sounds similar. Well anything can sound similar to anything if you pitch it right. Advertising makes a million pound a year industry implementing that tactic of spin. So it reminds you of communism. That's nice. But it's not communism. That can be proven. Well done, you get a gold star, moving right along.



I would disagree. Since you two are so insistent on dragging out the issue of the current system and not letting it drop. Of course you would say it reflects more on me. Your train of thought is imperical. Isn't it? That was a joke by the way.



I know what I read. And you have made your intentions known. You cannot back-pedal now. For example If AG really were true to his convictions then he would have left when he said he was instead of coming back again, and again, and again. I can tell that you two are trying to set me up for a fall, coz you think you've got me. Well I am here proposing and explaining ideas so I'm not gonna fall for that one. You want me to sell this idea and lay myself bare so my passion and extyreme efforts will appear all for nought when you two decide to rip into me with your criticisms. But I don't play into your game.




Instead of splitting hairs about linguistics, how about you get to your inevitable argument against the idea? Anyone can say either "cybernated" or "run by computer", however, we tend to not put everything in layman's terms, coz believe it or not, we don't assume everyone is stupid.

I could however from now on put everything in simple layman's terms if you prefer. Though something tells me you are an intelligent person so I didn't think I needed to. Would you like me to term it "cybernated" or "run by computer"? What category of terminology shall I use with you? Your splitting hairs and insistance that it is "run by computer" tells me you would prefer the shorther, more understandable words.



Let me ask you. Have we reached the apex of human, social and technological development? No, we have not. Have we developed a worldwide societal understanding that enables us all to live in peace? No we have not.

The very fact that we as human beings are still unable to efficiently communicate with each other, that we have classes of social stratification (i.e. the class systems in schools, nerdy kids/popular kids/outcasts/intelligent kids), the fact that technology STILL progresses all the time and shows no sign of slowing or stopping, and the fact that we see ourselves as seperate from nature, and seperate from each other, and so feel the need to arm ourselves with nuclear defenses, PROVES that we have not.

How do you see the future of the human race in say, 100 years time. Do you expect us to survive if we drag ourselves through to that time carrying the same economic structure with us? Will we all be dead by then? Will we wipe each other out in a nuclear holocaust, will we all perish under a global flood, or will we succumb to an errant meteor?

Or....

Do you see the future as a humane and peaceful world? If you do, then please I urge you, ask yourself, why. You may be suprised with how positive and altruistic an approach you have. Do you really think that our current system will sustain the human family for long enough to see that future? If you can see a better future for humanity, why do we all persist in supporting the current structure? Why do we think to ourselves "Aaaagh, someone will figure it out later on down the line. I would have died of old age before things get too bad, why should I care?"

EVERY hollywood film portrays the future as either some post-apocalyptic wasteland where a morality tail can be played out, or as a dystopic society that one man or woman causes to fall apart, (typically someone who possesses our current values) only to be replaced by our current way of thinking. I am yet to see a film paint a 100% POSITIVE future for mankind. This is done for a reason. To falsely teach you that there IS no future that can work for mankind. That trying to change society will only result in chaos and death. To make you accept that "well, at least that is just a film, I live in the real world, where things are BLATANTLY better". It's to make you lose hope in the future. As far as Hollywood is concerned, it probably started with Metropolis. As far as literature is concerned, it probably started with Brave New World.

And in the face of all this Hollywood propaganda, Orange have the audacity to have the slogan "The future's bright".

To have faith in a future for mankind is not laughable. Ever since the beginning of the recession I have researched alternative economic options for mankind. The only organisation that has stood out as having it all covered by means of condoning a value system shift, and thus surpassing the need to tackle them all individually, is The Venus Project. I understand that you find that amusing. However you should understand why you find that amusing.



Like I said earlier, this already exists in systems utilised today, only on a small scale. The aim is to implement these systems with optimal efficiency, and unbiased retroactions for the benefit of ALL the world's people. Not just a small percentage that the system is built to favour.
.



That is probably because you cannot be bothered to look into the Venus Project enough to see the people associated with The Venus project who hold those "credentials" that you honour so much. You saying that you don't see them, is like a kid shouting at his mother saying there is no grass in the garden when he cannot be bothered to look out the window.

Credientialism isn't central to human understanding.

And besides The Venus Project doesn't have "leaders". That would make this a fascist regime. The name "The Venus Project" in essence reaslly is simply a monicker for the ideas which compise the life-long experience and research of Jacque Fresco. That deals with the combination of the ideas, however, what it mainly conveys is the train of thought which his ideas have arrived at. This is not Jacque Fresco Inc. It is just a direction based on a train of thought that provides a more humane direction for humankind.

People try to criticise it's merits by applying them to the current system. The whole idea is that the system to be outgrown in order for these ideas to be functional, optimal and possible. To criticise these ideas by proposing how riudiculous they are when proposed WITHIN the current system shows a lack of grasp as to the pretext of these ideas.

And of course you are going to associate these ideas with communism. That is what you are taught. To associate anything that goes against the grain of the monetary system to be automatically communist by association. Well as I described before, there is nothing that proves that this IS communism. Coz it isn't. I challenge you to try and prove that. And unless you can, so what if they sound communist? Doesn't mean it IS communist.

I can tell a joke to you, it may sound like sarcasm, but that doesn't mean it IS sarcasm. Get off your communism high horse and try another angle.

All right, we have too many off-topic/tangential things going on right now, so I'm going to forget all of that and just make one simple point:

The economy is a high-order nonlinear dynamical system. If you know what that means, you will understand why any attempt at centralized control over the economy (or resource management, if you prefer that terminology) is doomed to failure. If you don't know what that means, then we're probably at an impasse because you will insist that your lack of understanding is not a problem, or that somehow the Venus project will simply make the economy go away by magically transcending the limitations of finite resources.

Well, an idea has a communist basis when it sounds communist in a non-incidental manner. These statements are statements relatively important to the intellectual framework.


Well, yes I do, if they are nonsense. "Best attribute" requires good attributes to borrow from. Some notions really don't have a lot to go from, because the Venus Project hasn't spawned a lot of intellectual effort behind it. Communism actually had intellectuals.


Ok, but two people are not "society", and while dualism may be somewhat intuitive, it does not mean that people here are necessarily being too dualistic.


Ha! If you said something intelligent, I might have to think about it more. Generally speaking though, I don't see a lot to talk about.


Um.... the problem isn't computers but rather that I don't think they are sufficient to run the economy. I think I already said this, but even a great supercomputer wouldn't be sufficient towards this end. Additionally, Orwell brought up that it would need to be programmed. You were avoiding this point, by bringing up question about the term "run the economy" and by saying it would be a "cybernated" system, we saw through the nonsense and the point we had about computers still stands.


Um..... it's one of the interpretations of it that seems to make the most logical sense. There is no great "contextual spin" here, as I gave my line of reasoning. If you had a different interpretation, you would be wasting less time to give it.

Resource management is a matter of calculations. Consideration of a computer for doing these calculations has occurred in the past. If you don't mean "a computer will do the calculations" I would think you are using the term "resource management" wrong.


Computers are programmed. Programs for highly complex things with insufficient information to make an algorithmic estimation are going to have to make guesses, and these guesses are going to be systematic distortions compared to the reality. Thus, these programs are going to have to be biased. This idea isn't silly. I once wrote a program for determining the required level of thickness of material needed to adequately shield from radiation. The issue is that too much radiation was worse than too little, so in my little program I made sure that the conclusion was biased towards giving too much thickness rather than too little thickness.


The trial and error isn't done centrally though, and that's the problem. Machine automation itself also is not usually ever done entirely, usually there are people who watch the machines, and some manufacturing methods have questioned an overly rapid move to automation, such as with the Toyota method, which emphasized worker quality inspection. Now, we can say that this failed given the recalls, but, the thing is that we haven't gotten to a point where anybody would think that total automation is likely a good idea. Total automation can make good products really quickly, but it also can make bad products really quickly too. Redundancy is also sometimes questioned because the point of redundancy is to not stop production, but some manufacturers argue that stopping production when an error is found and only restarting it after the error is solved is a better system.


In any case, I don't really care as much about the rest. I actually feel a little worn down, as I spent the last 2-3 hours straight in argument.

Why? That never stopped you before. I think I can take your lack of a point by point response as an unwillingness to respond in the manner in which we have already been responding. I find that very interesting. And you can't use the excuse that you cannot be bothered, or that you won't waste your time, or you "actually have a life", coz as I have said, that hasn't stopped you before. You just are unwilling to respond to my posts point by point. Very interesting.



Like I have said before, you say his because you do not know enough about the proposals to criticise it constructively. It is your frame of reference that dictates this conclusion. However without knowledge of the actual state of technology and more to the point the proposed approach to said technology and future technologicl development, you won't grasp this in a constructive way. You will merely have your own projections. And that is not how human beings can move forward.

Even if this could work, I can't find a clear idea of the steps that should be taken to get to the picture the Zeightgeist movement describes.
Unless you want a violent revolution of planting trees and constructing computer control centres. Money truly is powerful. Governments change using the stuff, how would one appear by abolishing it?

And how would you abolish it?

Largely because debating you is about as productive as talking to a brick wall, and I am not as tenacious as AG in such matters.


You reject the possibility of constructive criticism by holding your idea above the potential for rational disagreement. That particular facet of your rhetoric is more Stalinist or Maoist than Communist. It brings to mind "reeducation" camps.

In any case, you haven't given any concrete proposals other than "the economy will be run by a computer" with no elucidation of how that computer will work ("it will be self-evident" you say, what a crock of crap) or how the Venus project meaningfully differs from technocracy (hint: it doesn't, aside from the bundled conspiracy theories). You've completely sidestepped the issues of how the computer will gather data, what input it will focus on and what it will ignore, how it will manage what probably amounts to exabytes of data, what it will do with that data, and how the most complex computer ever conceived would be able to be programmed without a single bug (again, if you understood nonlinear dynamics, you would know that a bug in a program for running the economy would be utterly catastrophic). In short, you've hand-waved away all the relevant technical issues because (a) you have nowhere near the technical understanding to even begin to comprehend these issues, and (b) even if you did, the technical issues do not have solutions. I'm sure now you will just postulate a magical leap forward in what is possible with computers, but I can tell you that that is simply not going to happen. Some things are uncomputable, even if we turned all the matter in the universe into a giant computer.


No, it really is the mathematics that dictates this conclusion. The economy is not computable. I mean, you can try to disagree with the mathematics, but disagreeing with mathematics is a pretty conclusive indicator of either lack of understanding or delusion.

Well this is an issue of transition. And I completely understand your position. The only thing that CAN be done at this stage is for mass awareness about The Zeitgeist Movement (and hense The Venus Project) and the paradox of the monetary ecnomic system to spread. We hope that a big enough percentage of the population will have their eyes opened so when this ridiculous circus of an economy comes crashing down around our ears, and the governments will be forced to move into a military dictatorship to prevent mass riots, then enough people will be free thinkers and no longer sheep to the system, which to maintain control, is what the powers that be needs above all else. This will result in enough people losing and no more granting faith in their elected leaders, the leaders hense lose their stranglehold of fearmongering and financial and political control, and so as a majority of the influential population will refuse to partake in the corruptions and inhumaity of our current system and push forward towards a new social and economial paradigm, most likely the kind of system advocated by the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project; A resource-based economy.

The problem with transitions is that the conditioning of the monetary system propogate a continual cycle of materialism and apathy. People have grown to LIKE their stuff and their money. Partly because the incentive system has created what is known as the "luxury stratification", and partly because it is the only thing that is condoned within the system. As Tyler Durden said:

"Advertising has us chasing cars, and clothes, working jobs we HATE so we can buy s**t we don't NEED."

And because anyone willing to say anything against the system is immediately labeled a "communist" or "unpatriotic" or "nuts", the continual cycle of insatiable consumption continue unabaited. It's like the colonial era when ignorance ruled over reason by burning any woman suspected of being a witch.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." - Herman Goering at the Nuremburg Trials.

The feeling is more than mutual dude. Taking into considerationn that you expect me to have a sound understaning of monetary economics, and ridicule me when you perceive that I don't you ACTUALLY have the audacity to be unwilling to have a sound understanding of the proposals I have expressed.

That doesn't however cover your arse when trying to excuse your unwillingness to respond post by post which you have always done before. I would at least have expected you to leap at the opportunity to comment on the BNP since I brought it up. I think it is reasonable to say that I have said a lot of things that you are unwilling to comment on. Which I find very interesting.

Now this is not an issue of you finding these ideas ridiculous. That is incidental. I could say that I am unwilling to know what I am talking about, while criticising it, however that would not serve me. However you think it serves you to have a firm grounding to criticise something you have no interest in understanding. This is called hypocricy. I find it unbelieveable that I have to explain this to you. I would have thought this was self evident.

What you know of The Venus Project is only contingent on what I have told you. And you criticise the idea as a whole when you do not understand it as a whole. It is not a matter of me having to "sell" it to you. You say you cannot take me seriously coz according to you I do not understand economics, however you think I should take you seriously when you do not understand these proposals.



It seems the more I respond, the more your opinions have to change in order to maintain your disagreements. Your disagreements can only be classified as rational when all information is taken into consideration. That is what makes a rational disagreement rational. Otherwise it is called speculation. Your associations bear nothing on me or these ideas. They may remind you of certain things, but your lack of understanding coupled with your fervent disregard for this direction has tainted your perception of these proposals. And you think that stating such perceptions will put this idea into disrepute.

Well I direct you to my above quote of Herman Goering (who was by the way a despotic nazi) and state that it reminds me of the Bush administration. And let us notice your back-peddling on the issue of associative perception.




How nice.





Hint: Technocracy is characterised by the scientists and the technicians that control resources and hense the economy, and hense the population. In the proposals I advocate, NO HUMAN controls resources, or the economy, or any other human.

Get it, got it, good.



I actually did mention that sensors would monitor the state of the resources in realtime. You would have noticed that if you had read my posts properly.



The optimal methodology of resource management.



Like I said before, do you really think we are at the apex of technological development? Once the issue of "how much will it cost?" is surpassed, there are no telling what the possibilites would be.



That depends on what nature of data is in the equation.



Like I have said before similar system constructs are already in use on a smaller scale today. I think it is a logical approach to optimise these systems as technology progresses.



And mathmatics when applied inappriopriately to a methodology that you do not understand is not the way to progress.

Your last post before I stopped quote-replying was rambling and I didn't at the time have the inclination to muddle through that mess.


Nonsense. It is impossible to ever take all information into account on any decision. It is quite possible to reject an idea without understanding every tiniest detail of it, so long as you can demonstrate that a significant aspect of it is ridiculous.


Well, for one thing I have mostly been saying that your rhetoric reminds me of what I see coming from communists, more than that the Venus project reminds me of communism. The issue of rhetoric is mildly important because it is an indicator of intellectual rigor and intellectual honesty. But it's not central, so I'd just as soon drop that issue.

But frankly, I hold communist ideas in much higher regard than the Venus project, especially given your last reply to Asmodeus.


What backpedalling? I don't object to drawing such parallels. Are you so foolish as to assume I must be a Bush supporter?



Meh, some variants of technocracy also favor putting our silicon slaves in charge. Anyways, claiming that no human controls resources or the economy under the Venus project is patently false. A human must program the computer, and humans must supply the computer with input.


I saw that. It was too vague for me to regard it as meaningful. How will the computer seek out new resources? Where will all these sensors be built? Are you familiar with chaos theory, an important part of nonlinear dynamics? I assume not, because even the tiniest errors in measurement (too small to be measured by any conceivable test) will still give you devastatingly wrong output.


And what exactly is that?


Of course not, but again, those familiar with computer science will know that there actually are theoretical limits to what is and is not computable. You will not ever get explicit numerical formulas for the results of a nonlinear system, not even if you have an infinitely powerful computer running for an infinitely long period of time.


What you fail to understand is that there are real limits. Technology is a wonderful thing, it makes all our lives better and promises to continue to do so in the future. But it is not a panacea, and it can only take us so far.


I'm not in the business of predicting the future. The world is extremely nonlinear, rendering attempts at prediction absurd. Perhaps we will all die out. I am hopeful that the future will be a better place than the present, but it certainly does not follow from that that we need to turn the economy over to a computer.



Chasing delusional pipe dreams with no regard for what mathematics allows is not the way to progress either. No matter how hard you try, you will never transcend the limits mathematics places on us. The economy is not only uncontrollable, it is also unpredictable. I don't need to know the details of your system to say it is impossible: if you wish to control the economy, I can immediately know (yes, know, in an objective and indisputable sense) that you are tilting at windmills, without needing any further details.

Although I agree that programming the economy into a computer seems unlikely this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111752.htm
is, to say the least disquieting. Scientists seem to be working on computers that self program and mimic neurological principles. Considering that electronics is exceedingly faster in basic responses than organic processors this might be the beginning of the creation of mental monsters that are not necessarily interested in providing humanity with and ideal world and might be rather difficult to get rid of.

So stating that it is "mess" that you would be expected to "muddle through" excuses your side-stepping?



Well like I said I am here to present ideas. i don't klnow everything and I don't claim to. This is not MY movement. I didn't create this idea and there are other people in this movement who are much more mathmatically minded than myself. That is why they have wanted to become part of the sub-teams that they have become part of. You are right. The economy IS uncontrollable. But I would say that only applies to the current one since all problem solving is merely patchwork. And yes you do need to know the details of this system, coz like I said earlier, you expect NOTHING LESS from me to criticise the system YOU uphold. Get it? got it, good.