# Some thoughts on society.

by zwest135
Tags: society
 P: 1,123 zwest135 To test your basic conceptual theory, perhaps you should begin with a study of the Amish way of life...or cosider moving to a Cuban plantation...or perhaps try your hand at independently farming and bartering for goods/services for few years and report back with your findings?
P: 13
 Quote by russ_watters It is tough to consider someone who didn't have a job before and now has a job to be "exploited". More to the point, you are basically saying that we have "exploited" the 3rd world into a halving of their poverty rate over the past 20 years! That's some great exploitation! I make the same choice every morning. So what?

No, You dont. You don't go into a sweat shop every day to work insane hours to get paid rediculous low wages. You probaly get paid a good salary to work good hours at a job that is most likely not physically painful.

Now, you bring up a very good point with the fact that poverty rates have halved. That is very interesting if thats true. That makes sense to some degree, with the emering industries of india and china. That is a great point. Maybe I am wrong. I certainly hope that the poverty rates are going down because right now its sad.
P: 13
 Quote by WhoWee zwest135 To test your basic conceptual theory, perhaps you should begin with a study of the Amish way of life...or cosider moving to a Cuban plantation...or perhaps try your hand at independently farming and bartering for goods/services for few years and report back with your findings?
Why do you people insist I'm promoting amish style or hard labor life style. Im simply saying we should use technology to provide us with an abundance of everything without money!

This is not going to happen over night.

How are we going to deal with technological unemployment, when even the most advanced products are created by automation? No one talks about this issue but it is very real.
P: 801
 Quote by WhoWee zwest135 To test your basic conceptual theory, perhaps you should begin with a study of the Amish way of life...or cosider moving to a Cuban plantation...or perhaps try your hand at independently farming and bartering for goods/services for few years and report back with your findings?
I think he would much prefer to assume society can have all the benefits of capitalism without capitalism.

Like my son when he was a small child saying he didn't think we should kill animals for food. He was eating BBQ chicken at the time.

Some people just don't see the connection.
P: 13
 Quote by Al68 So, what are the incentives to create/maintain such efficiency in this plan. And what about the cutting edge things that aren't so cheap yet, that require new invention and innovation. Like the internet was before it existed. Where are the incentives for improvement? Are you assuming that these things just happen? Or are you assuming that people will be satisfied with a stagnant economy and not desire anything more?
The incentive will be looking at what you have provided to you and deciding its not sufficient. So you innovate something better, and if it is scientifically proven that it is better, it goes into production and everyone gets what you designed.

You guys understand that everything in society can be optimized right? There can also be different versions, however, they would be the best produced available. We have so many options in our society because of the monetary system. We often trade efficency for less work.

Everything should be looked at as a technical problem in society. For example: You would not solve the immigration problem with laws and restrictions. That is insuffiecient. You would solve it by designing a system that can provide for and support all the incoming poeple.

Society has got to elevate man to his highest potential. We have got to design our society to work for people, and provide for people with technology.
P: 801
 Quote by zwest135 I certainly hope that the poverty rates are going down because right now its sad.
Sad compared to what. Compared to any historical standard of living that has ever existed in the history of the human race?

Or compared to some ideal that has never existed anywhere?

There has always been relative poverty. ie there are some that have less than average. But you would have to admit that the people you are calling "exploited" have a better standard of living than 99.999 percent of humans that have ever lived on the planet. Assuming you realize how everyone except kings and rare others have lived throughout human history.

Of all times to call sad, you pick the absolute and by far best time in human history worldwide for the ability to have a decent life.
 P: 13 We need to take the subjective nature out of society. We have lawmakers that look at things and make rediculous rules to solve society. We need technicians who use the scientific method to solve problems in society. You know 40,000 plus people die in automobile collisions in the U.S. Well, what does congress do about this problem? Maybe they set speed limits. Maybe they create more cops. What does a technician do? he would probaly try to improve the transportation system to make it more like a train system. Or maybe he'd make the cars drive themselves and be aware of eachother through GPS systems. Maybe he'd put bumbers on all sides of the cars. I dont know what they'd do. But i know there is a scientific and technical way to fix every problem if we would focus our selves and our resources on it. We don't need this rediculous system, that only works for a minority of the world. Governments solve all our problems with rules and legislation and treaties. Thats not the way to do it.
Mentor
P: 25,965
 Quote by zwest135 I guess this is what you wanted me to respond to. 1. I'm not suggesting we go back to manual labor. I'm saying we use technology to its fullest potential and alleviate humans of physical labor. In the future I don't imagine very many will work. I imagine people will do whatever they want, and have whatever they want with no obligation to perform any kind of servitude. 2. Things would be equal because every one has access to everything. It is fair. Everyone gets a house, everyone gets everything. You can't steal anything, because everything is abundant, if you stole my tv I'd get another one for free. 3. Basically, everything is abundant, without the need for anyone to work. Most people would go to school and indugle in the arts and music. They would travel. They may even innovate and make better products for our society, which if it was determined by the scientific method that they new product was better, it would immediately be put into production and the production of the older one would stop. 4. Houses could constructed using autmation as well, people could order houses that suit their needs. Its all Technical problems and therefore can be solved with technical solutions. You should look into Jacque Fresco. He is a very intelligent individual. There would be no social stratification simply because everything is made available to everyone. These are not my own ideas, I just happen to agree with them. They were produced by the Zeitgeist movement, as you moderators know who closed my other thread for blasphemy i suppose. I wanted to discuss these ideas, because I feel they are worth our thoughts. If you really want to dive into these ideas, in a much more in depth manner I suggest you watch this video. Its not controversial in the least like the first Zeitgeist film was. It simply covers the things we have been talking about. Zeitgeist movement orientation video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...87043163636261 If you want to close this thread go ahead, but I feel that would be extreme, since we've been able to conversate on this for so long, I don't think it qualifies as crack pottery. I think the Zeitgeist films started out very controversial, but they have evolved into something very beneficial for society and i suggest you look into the video above or the site itself. Even the maker of the films has stated he is moving away from conspiratorial notions and more towards ways to make society better. The truth is the current socio-economic system is out of date. It is not only ineffective at distributing goods and services, but it has now paralyzed society with debt.
Oy vey.

Do not not see how unrealistic this is? Those people are a bunch of crackpots.

There is so much wrong and you don't seem to understand what's wrong.

 2. Things would be equal because every one has access to everything. It is fair. Everyone gets a house, everyone gets everything. You can't steal anything, because everything is abundant, if you stole my tv I'd get another one for free. 3. Basically, everything is abundant, without the need for anyone to work. Most people would go to school and indugle in the arts and music. They would travel. They may even innovate and make better products for our society, which if it was determined by the scientific method that they new product was better, it would immediately be put into production and the production of the older one would stop.
Oh dear. o_O

Explain where this abundance of everything comes from.
P: 13
 Quote by Al68 Sad compared to what. Compared to any historical standard of living that has ever existed in the history of the human race? Or compared to some ideal that has never existed anywhere? There has always been relative poverty. ie there are some that have less than average. But you would have to admit that the people you are calling "exploited" have a better standard of living than 99.999 percent of humans that have ever lived on the planet. Assuming you realize how everyone except kings and rare others have lived throughout human history.
You know starvation is a big problem in our world right? You know alot of people don't have fresh water? I think alot of the western world is very ignorant to how bad things are. I mean 40% of the world is living under $2 a day. That sounds pretty bad to me. The middle east, africa and asia are often in states of conflict and and civil wars because they are in such desperate situations. They would not be fighting if they had the standard of living that europe and america have. P: 1,123  Quote by zwest135 Why do you people insist I'm promoting amish style or hard labor life style. Im simply saying we should use technology to provide us with an abundance of everything without money! This is not going to happen over night. How are we going to deal with technological unemployment, when even the most advanced products are created by automation? No one talks about this issue but it is very real. I made this suggestion to point out that many people still live off of the land. Electricity and plumbing aren't even a given...and that's in the US. You might want to listen to that song from the 70's..."in the year 2525" http://www.lyricsondemand.com/z/zage...525lyrics.html Zager And Evans Lyrics In The Year 2525 Lyrics Send "In The Year 2525" Ringtone to your Cell In the year 2525 If man is still alive If woman can survive They may find In the year 3535 Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies Everything you think, do, or say Is in the pill you took today In the year 4545 Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes You won't find a thing to do Nobody's gonna look at you In the year 5555 Your arms are hanging limp at your sides Your legs not nothing to do Some machine is doing that for you In the year 6565 Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too From the bottom of a long black tube In the year 7510 If God's a-comin' he ought to make it by then Maybe he'll look around himself and say Guess it's time for the Judgement day In the year 8510 God's gonna shake his mighty head He'll either say I'm pleased where man has been Or tear it down and start again In the year 9595 I'm kinda wondering if man's gonna be alive He's taken everything this old earth can give And he ain't put back nothing Now it's been 10,000 years Man has cried a billion tears For what he never knew Now man's reign is through But through the eternal night The twinkling of starlight So very far away Maybe it's only yesterday In the year 2525 If man is still alive If woman can survive They may find In the year 3535 Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies Everything you think, do or say Is in the pill you took today ....(fading P: 13  Quote by Evo Oy vey. Do not not see how unrealistic this is? Those people are a bunch of crackpots. There is so much wrong and you don't seem to understand what's wrong. Oh dear. Why can't we provide for everyone? Its just a technical issue is it not. The only problem I could possibly see is that the technology is not available today. Which is very possible. I've said it over and over again. Maybe not today, but this could be done in the future. P: 175  Quote by zwest135 Why can't we provide for everyone? Its just a technical issue is it not. The only problem I could possibly see is that the technology is not available today. Which is very possible. I've said it over and over again. Maybe not today, but this could be done in the future. Let's start with you. What have you done lately to feed the hungry and house the homeless? Hey, lead by example. Are you suggesting that any one with an extra buck should feel ashamed for earning it while others are starving in the world? P: 801  Quote by zwest135 The incentive will be looking at what you have provided to you and deciding its not sufficient. So you innovate something better, and if it is scientifically proven that it is better, it goes into production and everyone gets what you designed. You guys understand that everything in society can be optimized right? There can also be different versions, however, they would be the best produced available. We have so many options in our society because of the monetary system. We often trade efficency for less work. Everything should be looked at as a technical problem in society. For example: You would not solve the immigration problem with laws and restrictions. That is insuffiecient. You would solve it by designing a system that can provide for and support all the incoming poeple. Society has got to elevate man to his highest potential. We have got to design our society to work for people, and provide for people with technology. My biggest question is, let's say you design such a system, what do you propose to do with the people who choose not to join or participate in your "system"? Would their freedom to work and trade among themselves be taken away? Would they be imprisoned for refusing to join and practicing capitalism among themselves? Would you use force against anyone who worked outside your system for themselves? If not, then fine, do what you want, just leave me out of it. I have no problem with any economic system in which participation is completely voluntary. P: 801  Quote by zwest135 You know starvation is a big problem in our world right? You know alot of people don't have fresh water? I think alot of the western world is very ignorant to how bad things are. I mean 40% of the world is living under$2 a day. That sounds pretty bad to me. The middle east, africa and asia are often in states of conflict and and civil wars because they are in such desperate situations. They would not be fighting if they had the standard of living that europe and america have.
I agree with you here. My point was that it was much worse in the past. And it seems like the things that have made it better today are the things that you're against.
The improvements in China and elsewhere happened because of the things you seem to be against. The same things that are the reason for the higher standard of living in America and Europe.
Mentor
P: 25,965
 Quote by zwest135 You know starvation is a big problem in our world right? You know alot of people don't have fresh water? I think alot of the western world is very ignorant to how bad things are. I mean 40% of the world is living under $2 a day. That sounds pretty bad to me. The middle east, africa and asia are often in states of conflict and and civil wars because they are in such desperate situations. They would not be fighting if they had the standard of living that europe and america have. Spouting off statistics in no way supports the feasability of your way of thinking. The$2 dollars a day doesn't even have any meaning in relation to our cost of living, so it is a useless statistic. Is poverty bad, sure, but that doesn't support what you are proposing.

You have not been able to give one credible answer to how you would obtain this "utopia".