Skeptic Project

So over on TZM forum this post rises up and makes some valid critiques of the whole concept.

“The economic system described seems to completely ignore human nature. How would people ever arrive at the point where there are no true possessions, just “access points” to avail yourself of the use of a product? It seems very unrealistic. Part of human nature equates possession with security. When one has exclusive use of say a house, a car, a whatever, it adds to one’s security and to one’s happiness. One must then protect the possession and that gives rise to private property law, etc.

Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse?

Realistically, I don’t believe even the most advanced super computer could ever even remotely manage global demand, global production and global resource allocation. Despite all its flaws, I think the price systems that exist today are the most effective resource allocators. For example, the price of oil goes up, it is transmitting that there is the likelihood that demand is rising faster than supply, the higher price delivers the financial incentive to find more oil and creates the scenario that alternative energy sources become more economically competitive. That’s how a price system allocates resources.

So, as interesting and logical as this video appears, personally I think it is pie in the sky warmed over soviet central planning.”

How would you respond to this critique?

How do you think they respond to the critique ?

Well here is how LOL

I think this guy is too inside the box to step out of it.

But once again I delegate the responsbility to respond him to someone more articulate or more eregetic to do so.

This guy calls him closed minded and unimaginative in essence, but then asks someone else with more skills to debate the points as he is unable to do so.

Then next:

This person like many others, confuses human nature with human behavior, which is conditioned and variable depending on culture.

The expert on human beings and semantics speaks up I guess LOL

Then they follow that up with

That aside -

The argument states that we have some intrinsic emotional attachment to our material possessions, and therefore our ownership of them creates a sense of security. I do not love my computer, nor my house, nor my couch, etc. They are merely tools and accommodations for living.

If possession supposedly create security and happiness, why would unrestricted access be negative? Within a resource based economy, any individual would still be free to "own" material possessions; the idea simply equates to a lifetime rental.

There is no threat of authority to reclaim these possessions so the practicality is no different than conventional ownership.

The use of automation, elimination of the monetary system, and incorporation of clean energy would free billions of people from coercive wage-slavery in the service industry, allowing them to contribute to society in relevant ways.

Who controls the computer systems? the only authority is science, and the application thereof. There are no arbitrary decision-makers or ruling elite.

Through application of the scientific method we will arrive at decisions in consideration with the premise to ensure collective human survival, and to thrive. The physical people who enact these decisions are merely vessels for the applied data, they have no innate authority or executive powers. As the entire system is open-sourced, everyone is free to contribute. We will avoid subjective human error through the dismissal of opinion and the adherence to fact. Can factual science be oppressive and abusive?

Major problems with the monetary system is that it perpetuates innate hierarchy, division, deprivation, inequality, and thus coercion and power.

- Maybe not the most concise or intelligent but its my go.

This person instantly goes into the trope of how his own posessions are unimportant to him, but we all know the truth of the matter is this: If this person was stripped of his computer, couch and home he would soon say the exact opposite and be in as much a hurry to get them back as any ordinary human being. This person is no more seperated from the value system of external objects under his posession than anyone else.

Then he goes on to discuss the inherent coercive wage slave system we live in, yet another TZM trope, where they make out every human being is working as a slave and noone makes a living doing things for themselves or in a job they really love. You will find this trope is only expounded from those who have jobs that are shit and have little value to offer to society in the first place. Should this person be in the position to offer something of high value to society through their knowledge,skills and ambition they would certainly be no wage slave, rather they would be a valuable asset and more able to demand what they wanted from their so called 'wage masters'.

Then this person goes on with the trope science will control the computers, and that noone will rule the system as it will be open source. Yet again he shows lack of understanding of the complex system of manufacture, resources and allocation. Completely sidestepping this point and opting for the simple there will be no ruling elite class to ruin the imaginary system. The imaginary system that will already be disfunctional due to the inherent problems the economist described.

Next up we get the following member saying:

Bleh! Well here are my reactions.

People only equate possession with security because we live in an environment where not owning something means not having access to it, it's that simple. You don't worry about sharing something with the rest of your family, because you know that you'll still have access to that something without exclusive ownership. Property rights are not inherent in human nature, if it is, find me the part of the brain that specifically processes ownership.

Computer systems will be used as a tool to calculate global demand, production and distribution to the extent that it is possible, if something needs human involvement it will. But I think the computer systems could handle a lot more than you seem to imagine, as we're primarily talking about math with large numbers, something computers are very good at. The computer systems would be monitored by regularly updated interdisciplinary teams. Anyone can join these interdisciplinary teams, if you have the relevant education for it, which in turn would be freely distributed. As all of the statistical data processed by the computer systems would be fully transparent to see by anyone, and that there would be no monetary incentive to act against the greater good, and no obvious way to benefit yourself by fudging the system, I see corruption being a rare occurrence, especially considering that these people would not be living in an environment that encourages corruption as the one we live in today. (but rather encourages holistic cooperation, again unlike the environment we live in today)

Again a lot of words avoiding the obvious that resources will not simply be abundant miraculously through the implementation of a computer system. Fact remains resources are and always will be rare, some which are essential to the manufacturing process will never be available for the entire planet to use freely in all their goods, unless the computer is a nano replicator which it clearly is not.

He also goes into the human nature argument about human nature not being specific towards ownership. His argument is property right are not inherent in human nature, the economists argument did not even say that, his argument was: "Part of human nature equates possession with security." Notice he said part of our nature makes us feel better and safer under the knowledge we have access to something whenever we need it. This is pretty obvious and self explanatory and to try and argue this is not so simply shows that this tool has never lived on the streets or had to go without mummy providing him his escape everytime he needs something.

Next up we get Voice of Racism putting in his 2 cents of nonsense:

This guy just needs to start taking anthropology to see how ridiculous his notion of human nature, possessions and ownership really are. To equate these things with human nature is to infer that there is some kind of genetic structure that codes human beings to want ownership of material goods.

Again another strawman argument that avoids the points the economist actualy made, with a dose of educational advice to boot. If anything Voice of Racism needs to do some actual research of economies and production as well actually read and adress the points made by the opening argument. Which he absolutely failed to do.

Then a few more pipe up their thoughts I will let you read those yourself.

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=231&id=339456&Itemid=100114&lang=en

Conclusion: These people always say that material objects and ownership of them are not important, yet they all want a system that provides everyone with everything they require whenever they want it. The dichotomy of this is so self evident even a school kid could see it.

Who controls the computer systems in this arrangement? It seems there is some omnipresent power that will supervise and construct these systems. Is that not a recipe for oppression and eventual abuse?

How do they work in the first place? Who tells the computer to where to allocate resources in cases of scarcity? The highest bidder? Nope, there's no money. The most important place of production? How do you know that, there's not a virtual variable for value to measure there things by.

The whole team believes that scarcity is just a product of our "monetary system", which is faith-based thinking.

You can dismantle their whole ideology like this without even mentioning human nature, a friend did so on VTV's forum site.