Skeptic Project

"Isn't that always the way it works? A scientist has an idea, then creates a theory from the idea, then tests that theory looking for evidence to prove the theory is true or not. Evidence is found in the results of the test." -bkyle.

"Generally no thats what inventors do. Scientists tend to observe something occurring and try to explain it by replicating it in the laboratory with repeated tests and taking notes on every single test. Then re applying it with peers until they have proven why their observation occurs with a reasonable and verifiable experiment." -Edward Scissorhands.

Do these scientists to try explain it and replicate it without forming their own "ideas" and creating "theories" from those ideas? Don't you agree this is a petty semantic argument?

"For a man with 15 years in a scientific field and Bachelors of Science you sure are missing the point and being led astray very easily." -Edward Scissorhands.

I like intelligent discussion and debate. You guys ruin it with insults as if this is a grade-school playground. I've had just about enough.

@Bkyle,

You have not yet corrected the lies told about this forum regarding people being banned.

I see no reason why you deserve intelligent replies from anyone here.

"You have not yet corrected the lies told about this forum regarding people being banned. I see no reason why you deserve intelligent replies from anyone here." -That Jerk Matt.

I didn't make any claims about people being banned from anywhere. Why is it my responsibility? Besides, that message thread with Voice of Reasons' comment about how to get banned here is now locked.

Doesn't just the act of offering intelligent discussion deserve intelligent , well-thought-out replies?

Good to see you hanging in there bkyle, perhaps there can be meaningful debates here that have difficulty happening on the TZM forums.

> Why are some young people well-behaved and some are not. More often, it
> is no genetics, but the environment they live in and are exposed to.

I would agree generally with the more often part, but whether its 60/40 or 40/60, perhaps we can at least agree to experiment and test and find out which are genetic behaviours and which are not, and plan solutions accordingly, eg. schooling for those that can be saved, and prison for those that cannot..

> (1) Those jobs are not 8 hours for 5 days a week, plus long commute
> times. People will work for only a few hours, and probably not every day.
> Why? Because the size of the available labour pool just became huge when
> we eliminated the need for all of those money-related jobs.

Agreed.

Though.. we can already do that today, with so many unemployed around, we can job share.

Long commutes are a bit more challanging, as that requires building housing next to businesses, but thats still doable today without too much effort..

> (2) Those jobs are not meaningless for the good of humanity and the planet.
> The remaining jobs is work that _needs_ to be done. Further, some of that
> work only temporarily needs to be done until we automate it. Now that so
> many people are freed up, and money is not an obstacle, the rate of
> technological advancement, including automation, will be at a very high
> rate of change.

It might be at a very high rate of change..

I remember reading some time ago that its because of money that we have a high rate of technological advancement, so removing it might actually slow us down..

Not that in itself is a bad thing, just that we might not see such a rapid rate that we was hoping for, nor can we say it will happen when we remove money, or even if we do..

As I can see a RBE future, still with money.. (The more I look into money, the more useful it appears, rather than less useful..)

> (3) People are not working for just a meagre income. All of their needs
> are taken care of (home, food, medical, school, entertainment, etc). They
> work because the work needs to be done. Working a little bit for the good
> of everyone is the least they can do, given that "everyone" is taking good
> care of them.

Looking at places like Kuwait, it doesn't appear offhand that folk there who I hear all do get a basic income of $30k work a little bit for the good of everyone.

But as long as enough people do, it should work.

As I estimate that only 10% of the current population needs to work to keep everyone housed and fed, and that in the UK 4% of the population volunteer, with 6% in Germany, that once the rest of people are freed, we might easily hit that 10% mark. Even if not easily, it doesn't appear that far out of reach I reckon, and with a bit of careful design re. automation, I reckon realistically doable today.

> If doing janitorial work for 2 or 3 hours a day means I have the rest of
> my day to spend with my family, to enjoy life, to apply myself to issues
> I feel are important, and to not worry because the future of the planet
> is being carefully taken care of, I would make that change in a heartbeat.

I fills my heart with joy to hear that someone else other than me would be bothered to clean toilets!

You know we don't have to wait to build this future, we can make it happen today if we wanted.

More importantly, in the world of TVP most jobs of today just disappear. It's not a question of automating with work of retail clerks, sales people, insurance people, real estate people, bankers, investors, and all the other money-related jobs. All of those millions of people are no free to do work that really matters to humanity and the good of the planet.

Yeah, and all those lost financial jobs will be offset by new jobs handling the resource-based economy. You need people to keep track of resources, valuate them, decide where they are going to be allocated - it's basically the same as finance, if not more complicated. Since you've removed capitalism, you've removed the automatic supply and demand dynamics, so you'll have to figure those out manually now. That also leaves a much higher chance for catastrophic error as well. The system will have to be extremely well-designed and well-staffed with people who really care about not losing their job in order for it to have a remote chance of working. And I seriously doubt you can achieve that without money

(2) Those jobs are not meaningless for the good of humanity and the planet.

There is nothing meaningless about financial jobs, because there is nothing meaningless about money. It is useful and valuable, and working with it provides value as well. Before banks, people had money sitting around doing nothing, yet it was hard for others to secure funding for new ventures. Banks solved both problems with one stone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-HOz8T6tAo - a great educational series on banking.

All of their needs are taken care of (home, food, medical, school, entertainment, etc).

Assuming it works. This is circular. An RBE has to work in order for peoples' needs to be taken care of, and peoples' needs have to be taken care of for an RBE to work. I see many examples of circular reasoning in TZM's ideology, which is probably why so many people believe it and have a hard time seeing past it (they end up arguing in circles instead). Predicting a self-perpetuating cycle is fine as long as you also provide a way to get into the cycle in the first place, which I have not yet seen. That needs to come first.

Working a little bit for the good of everyone is the least they can do, given that "everyone" is taking good care of them.

That's still no guarantee they will work.

More often, it is no genetics, but the environment they live in and are exposed to.

Didn't you read those articles I posted? Genetics and environment play a 50/50 split in determining behavior. And virtually 0% is affected by parenting! Please stop ignoring the science. You're supposed to use science in your movement but you never listen to the science. It's ridiculous.

"all those lost financial jobs will be offset by new jobs handling the resource-based economy. You need people to keep track of resources, valuate them, decide where they are going to be allocated - it's basically the same as finance, if not more complicated" -domokato.

We already have technology to automatically keep track of resources. Many fields, from agriculture to assembling line manufacturing, do this on a daily basis.

What does "value them" mean?

Allocation is determined by computer. This is part of the beauty of TVP. When humans are put into positions of power, such as resource allocation, corruption is inevitable. Computers don't have such emotions.

What other new jobs are going to offset the huge percentage of the population that have financial related jobs?

You say its more complicated, but you don't say why.

"Since you've removed capitalism, you've removed the automatic supply and demand dynamics, so you'll have to figure those out manually now" -domokato.

Why do you claim the supply and demand relationship is removed? Humanity still has resources and must manage them (the supply) and we still need those resources (the demand). I don't see a RBE being any more manual than we have now.

"That also leaves a much higher chance for catastrophic error as well." -domokato.

Why? Without monetary restrictions, backup systems will be created and in place to make sure everything is running as it should be. The catastrophic errors we experience today are often the result of not enough funding for adequate materials and back-up systems.

"The system will have to be extremely well-designed and well-staffed with people who really care about not losing their job in order for it to have a remote chance of working. And I seriously doubt you can achieve that without money." -domokato.

To the contrary, I think it will be easier. Currently, people work long hours at meaningless jobs they hate. Corruption and inside-crime are widespread problems in many industries. In a RBE, people work for the good of their communities. Their work always matters, and this builds pride. If the work doesn't appeal to them, they can change jobs, and their should be no animosity because it wasn't about the pay, the lack of potential career advancement, or other conventional complaints about our unfair conventional system.

I think of it like a strata in a home complex. People nominate themselves for the various positions. They don't care about losing their job. They do it for the love of their home and community. If they don't like the work, they rarely leave in anger. Another person volunteers for the position and the work is transitioned over to them. Stratas like this manage themselves every day in hundreds of cities.

"There is nothing meaningless about financial jobs, because there is nothing meaningless about money. It is useful and valuable, and working with it provides value as well. Before banks, people had money sitting around doing nothing, yet it was hard for others to secure funding for new ventures. Banks solved both problems with one stone." -domokato.

There was a time when we needed money. It got us to where we are today. However, now it is not just holding us back, but it is the root of most evils in the world today.

"This is circular. An RBE has to work in order for peoples' needs to be taken care of, and peoples' needs have to be taken care of for an RBE to work. Predicting a self-perpetuating cycle is fine as long as you also provide a way to get into the cycle in the first place, which I have not yet seen. That needs to come first." -domokato.

I agree. That is the biggest challenge. Just because one doesn't know the entire route, it doesn't negate the need to get there. If we collectively start thinking about it, I'm confident we can find a way.

"Didn't you read those articles I posted?" -domokato.

Which articles? I've read a lot of messages on this site from you.

"Genetics and environment play a 50/50 split in determining behavior. And virtually 0% is affected by parenting!" -domokato.

Doesn't parenting fit into the 50% environment side?

domokato, I like the indenting you do. It beats the quotes I'm using. How can I do that?

> are you suggesting another RBE-type society is possible today?

This one.

I reckon its not too far removed to imagine a community where the citizens are chosen based on their desire to do volunteer work, so that our population would match the level of automation affordable in a community with people working in ordinary average paid jobs, eg. perhaps 50% of the population works voluntarly, whilst the other half around doing what they please.

With UK volunter rates at 4% of population I hear, and Germany rates at 6%, I imagine its entirely possible to imagine an average community could reach 10%, whilst a selective population one could reach far higher. (Hence plucking the 50% figure out of thin air..)

If you and I are willing to clean toilets, then it gives me hope we can do better than 6% :-)

(One would start off paying people to do the toilets until one reached a high enough level of volunteer labour, and then you wouldn't bother paying people..)

"I agree. That is the biggest challenge. Just because one doesn't know the entire route, it doesn't negate the need to get there. If we collectively start thinking about it, I'm confident we can find a way."

But you don't.

I've talked to half a dozen people in TZM, two of them in "power". Four of them were interested in planning details, costs and regulations, two were not. Guess which.

You guys have to realize that most people don't give a shit about TVP and never will. If I tell people that I'm going to make 10k a month by selling Amway shit, they'll probably laugh. If I do it, they probably won't. Same applies to TVP.

There are two ways to react to that:

#1 Hope style: Just pray that people start spreading the word more efficiently and that the movement will grow to 15M in size, which will then do some activism stuff that PJ gotta come up with. Odds are, nobody will care and your movement won't achieve anything. $10 on that, please.

#2 Strategic: Realize that you won't get millions of followers by sitting around on an online forum. Stop crying about "the movement is too small", most people won't do shit anyway. 50% of Wikipedia edits are written by 0.7% of its users, 75% by 2%. Market your message straight to the 2% who will actually do something and create an actual project management system to collaborate. Once you have figured out how to start a TVP cycle of abundance, why not promote that?

What does "value them" mean?

To valuate means to estimate the value of something. In this case, to figure out how much the resource is worth in comparison to other resources. This is necessary because there will always be scarce resources and you need to decide which ones you would rather have. Also, you'd have to valuate the end products to figure out which ones you would rather make. In capitalism, pricing does this for you; this is a decentralized process that can self-correct under the right conditions. In an RBE, this process has to be centralized, and when it is you get centralization of power (thus also increasing the chance for corruption) and risk of higher damage from error. You cannot fully automate this process because value is human-subjective. Technocracy Inc proposed a mechanism to handle this called energy accounting (and even it has its own problems), while TVP/TZM has proposed no such solution.

You say its more complicated, but you don't say why.

Because you no longer have money, which means you no longer have a universal medium of exchange and store of value. How much is a pig worth compared to an iPod shuffle? You can't look at prices to tell you. You gotta figure it out yourself.

"Since you've removed capitalism, you've removed the automatic supply and demand dynamics, so you'll have to figure those out manually now" -domokato.

Why do you claim the supply and demand relationship is removed? Humanity still has resources and must manage them (the supply) and we still need those resources (the demand). I don't see a RBE being any more manual than we have now.

So instead of prices affecting supply and demand and vice versa, you just end up with supply and demand, and you gotta figure out how to allocate these resources and products, and before you can do that you have to valuate them. So how are you gonna do it all? I have not yet seen a proposed mechanism besides "computers", which doesn't really explain anything.

Currently, people work long hours at meaningless jobs they hate. Corruption and inside-crime are widespread problems in many industries. In a RBE, people work for the good of their communities. Their work always matters, and this builds pride.

You can't keep ignoring the jobs that are not desirable but that need to be done nonetheless. What if everyone wants to be an artist? What kind of a world would that be? Computers sure wouldn't work anymore without anyone to maintain and build them...And there goes your centralized economy. In capitalism, if no one wants to be a computer engineer, but the position needs to be filled (because it will create a lot of profit for the company), an employer can offer a higher and higher salary (up to a limit) until someone takes the job. You have no such mechanism in an RBE.

I don't know what you mean by "strata", but people work in communities because that's how humanity evolved, in tribes. They work for social reasons. But when you're at a global level it becomes harder and harder to play to those tribal instincts. You're working for people outside of your community, people you never see, people across the globe - it's not the same thing. For example, you're working at a factory that mass produces car parts that get shipped to Japan. There's no community aspect there. If you fuck up or slack off, no one in your community is going to suffer.

I agree. That is the biggest challenge. Just because one doesn't know the entire route, it doesn't negate the need to get there.

No, other observations negate the need to get there. Not knowing the entire route makes it dangerous to attempt to get there.

If we collectively start thinking about it, I'm confident we can find a way.

Yeah, not when TZM bans you for attempting to flesh out their ideology.

Doesn't parenting fit into the 50% environment side?

No, there's the home environment and the outside environment (peers). The home environment has very little (0%) effect while the outside environment has a big effect (50%).

The 50-0-50 rule: Why parenting has virtually no effect on children - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200809/the-50-0-50-rule-why-parenting-has-virtually-no-effect-chi</p>

domokato, I like the indenting you do. It beats the quotes I'm using. How can I do that?

Use < blockquote > thing < /blockquote > just without the spaces inside the brackets.

So instead of prices affecting supply and demand and vice versa, you just end up with supply and demand, and you gotta figure out how to allocate these resources and products, and before you can do that you have to valuate them. So how are you gonna do it all? I have not yet seen a proposed mechanism besides "computers", which doesn't really explain anything.

The resource allocation process is imo the most important factor for a TVP/technocratic/alternative society. You could allocate products very easily with some kind of new money system in which you have a basic amount of wealth and can earn bonuses through work, and spend them by buying scarce products.

Distributing resources - who gets them when, which demand to prefer, and so on...that seems to be more difficult.
The process we're using right now is certainly not ideal, but at least it's working.

As such, I see a process of evolving the current system by experimenting and documenting, so we can slowly impliment beneficial changes and remove the processes that don't work so well.

Great idea, but isn't that what we're doing now?

"Who disagrees with creating such things and then freely giving the food to the population? "

The people who invest in the facilities.

> The people who invest in the facilities.

If those same people run factories and employ those getting free food, it can mean lower wages, and cheaper products to outcompete the competition.

Then if you reduce housing costs to free, the same thing happens..

Also, if people don't have to spend money on food, they can spend it on buying other products..

@WurmD,

There's a reason altruists are poor.

Also, go fuck yourself and die.

Don't even try boo-hooing over this post. You asked for it and you know it.

WurmD, you're confusing products with resources. Allocating products is pretty simple, you give people x credits, people buy y stuff, end of story.

Deciding which facilities get build when and how is much more complicated, esp. when money is not the deciding factor.