Anybody else jumping on the Zeitgeist bandwagon?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Scotty Mo]
Basically the idea is to create abundance of all the things we need.
[/QUOTE]

Ok…how? By magic?

The sun produces enough energy in one hour to power the world for a year.

That’s probably off by several orders of magnitude (I believe that it’s closer to say that the sunlight hitting the earth represents the worlds energy output for a year), but so what? We can’t harness all of that energy. You can’t wave a magic wand and create solar power plants…and once you create them, you have to maintain them.

The same can be said for the other clean, renewable energy resources.

Exactly…they all take massive amounts of resources, including labor to create AND maintain. How will you do that? I don’t think you really grasp the scale here…if you wanted to replace, say, coal in the US with solar and wind, do you have any concept of what that would entail resource wise to do? What it would cost? And how would you pay for it if you eliminated money? How would you get people to mine the ores, refine the materials, build the structures and infrastructure, put the things in, and then maintain them? It would take millions of wind turbines, and thousands (10’s of thousands) of square miles of solar panels to even get you close to where coal is today.

We just don’t have the technical capability to do it yet. But eventually it would come around.

Maybe we will, and maybe we won’t. There are no guarantees. Companies and countries have been trying to develop alternative energy sources for decades, and have spent billions on R&D. Fusion has been looked at for half a century now, and again billions have been spent. While wind and solar have some, vertical applications today they aren’t close to ready to scale up to take on coal…and they may never be.

Unfortunately, money seems to be an inhibiting factor in our quest for this because these energy sources cannot compete.

So, they want to do away with money. Ok. How will they get the resources needed to do it without money? Magic? You still need all those resources…massive amounts. Will people just give them to you? Along with their labor? Money is only a proxy for materials and labor…just a way of keeping accounts in a universally accepted system of what Joe’s 40 hours this week on running copper line for your solar plant costs in terms of resources. Joe exchanges his labor for the labor and material resources of others. How will you do all that without money, and how will this magically enable you to build alternative energy systems that can’t compete with the current systems? They STILL won’t be able to compete on a resource for resource basis after all. That part won’t change. Now though you’ll have to figure out how to ‘buy’ rare earths, refined products and ‘pay’ your labor to build this stuff all out…and you’ll have to do it using something that is exactly like money. Or you are talking barter…a ton of rare earths for a barge full of rice and 1000 sides of beef.

So the point is to create enough abundance that exchange is not necessary. As for people’s labor, well this would be a system that would directly benefit them so there should be plenty of volunteers.

[CurtC]

@Scotty Mo

So the point is to create enough abundance that exchange is not necessary. As for people’s labor, well this would be a system that would directly benefit them so there should be plenty of volunteers.

So in your ideal world, a person would wake up in the morning, do some work when he feels like it, and for whatever he needs, he just grabs it from the warehouse of free resources and takes it home?

Sounds great!

[Chimera]

Yes, we want untrained volunteers showing up to build complex systems.

Whenever they feel like showing up to boot.

Pure pollyanna bullshit.

[Fear_Itself]

@Scotty Mo

The question that is presented throughout is not "can we afford it? but “do we have the resources and tecnology to make it happen?”

I don’t see any difference between those statements. If you don’t have the resources to make it happen, it is the same as saying you can’t afford it.

[msmith537]

@Scotty Mo

Tough crowd…

Basically the idea is to create abundance of all the things we need. The sun produces enough energy in one hour to power the world for a year. (or something like that). The same can be said for the other clean, renewable energy resources. We just don’t have the technical capability to do it yet. But eventually it would come around.

Unfortunately, money seems to be an inhibiting factor in our quest for this because these energy sources cannot compete.

I would suggest you read an introductory macroeconomics book. Macroeconomics is the study of converting resources into the goods and services required to meet society’s needs and wants.

The short answer is if it requires more resources to design, build and maintain the solar panals used to collect the sun’s energy than it would to produce the same amount of energy using other methods, it’s not worth it. At least not in the short term.

[Ruby_Slippers]

@Scotty Mo

Tough crowd…

Basically the idea is to create abundance of all the things we need. The sun produces enough energy in one hour to power the world for a year. (or something like that). The same can be said for the other clean, renewable energy resources. We just don’t have the technical capability to do it yet. But eventually it would come around.

Unfortunately, money seems to be an inhibiting factor in our quest for this because these energy sources cannot compete.

So the point is to create enough abundance that exchange is not necessary. As for people’s labor, well this would be a system that would directly benefit them so there should be plenty of volunteers.

Yes, this can be a tough crowd. Fighting ignorance is a tough job. I usually stay out of these debates because I don’t feel I have enough to contribute.

In response to your claim that there should be plenty of volunteers, I want to reiterate my point that if people are not able to exchange their labor for food and shelter, they will have to use their labor to grow and harvest their own food, spin thread and cloth, sew their own clothing and other fabrics, chop wood for fires and for building shelter and furniture, and in general do everything on their own that they are currently getting through exchanges. Whether the exchange is facilitated by money or direct barter or some other method, if people can’t make this exchange, they won’t have time or energy for anything more altruistic than taking care of their own and their family’s basic needs. Everything in our current culture is a direct result of this exchange.

[Great_Antibob]

Indeed, and even if it’s worth it in the long term, why should people volunteer in the short term (i.e. not get paid thereby forgoing food and shelter) for a long term benefit? To paraphrase Keynes, in the long run we’re all dead.

I’m not going to volunteer without pay for 5 years if that means my family starves and becomes homeless for 5 years, even if the payoff is that we have energy security at the end of the line.

[Mangetout]

@Scotty Mo

Tough crowd…

Basically the idea is to create abundance of all the things we need. The sun produces enough energy in one hour to power the world for a year. (or something like that). The same can be said for the other clean, renewable energy resources. We just don’t have the technical capability to do it yet. But eventually it would come around.

Unfortunately, money seems to be an inhibiting factor in our quest for this because these energy sources cannot compete.

So the point is to create enough abundance that exchange is not necessary. As for people’s labor, well this would be a system that would directly benefit them so there should be plenty of volunteers.

So you’re talking about having a Star Trek - style post-scarcity utopia. That would probably work, if we had Star Trek technology (unlimited free energy, automated ability to fabricate anything easily and quickly, idealised construction materials, magical medical technologies, etc). How do we get there from here? Assuming it’s even attainable.

[Consensus]

Keep in mind that for every practical objection there is also an ideological objection to the ideas expressed by the OP. It’s not about what we need, we have everything we need. It’s about what we want, cause we don’t have everything we want. Never have never will.

[panaccione]

Ok maybe I should illustrate my point of view here. So you all can see what I see – big picture. Where to begin?

Could we feed everybody?

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Does_the_world_produce_enough_food_to_feed_everyone

“The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.”

Where do we get motivation?

RSA ANIMATE: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

• Very cool video. And I’ll give you a hint to the question, it’s not money.

What about technology?

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

• Ray Kurzweils theory of exponential growth with Technology. It’s only a matter of time until we can harness clean, renewable energy. The same logic follows for every other factor with labor. Not only does technology take our jobs but they also increase production. Which is a good thing, unless of course you need money and a job.

Income Inequality and it’s effects

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=income+inequality+and+poverty&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CF8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.iza.org%2Fdp1277.pdf&ei=68caUJrPOsbj0QHF2YDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHNwQMM2_gotUTyNDuhLQ-_bZo_wg

• Crime and Violence rises – education, health and social well being declines. This is just a manifestation of the monetary system we live in. There is no regulating it because money controls everything. The end result is monopoly and cartels.

Volunteerism

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

• Over 1/4 of the U.S. population volunteers at one point or another. Most of those are made up of the middle class and working class, not the elite. Imagine if people actually had more time so they could contribute to a system that actually benefits them. But instead everyone’s slaving away at their job for the wealthy elite.

Climate Change and the Environment

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

• Just keep burning that coal and oil. Even if it destroys the environment and kills us all.

Culture and Materialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

• very cool video but frightening at the same time. Our products are made cheaply and made to go to waste. Furthermore, constant advertising leads people to buy shit they don’t need and resources and waste continues. But this is essential to keep the economy going.

Peter Joseph – Where are we now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O67AZfUMXw

• A 1 hour lecture where he discusses all these topics and more.
  Our environment has a profound effect on us. Money is needed to survive but unfortunately it appeals to your selfishness and your greed at the same time. But this is not right. Life is about cooperation, not competition. Perhaps, Capitalism is what needs debunking.

[Deeg]

Scotty Mo, I appreciate that you’re trying to make the world better. The problem is, as I see it, is that what you are suggesting is a form of Communism with some modern sci-fi thrown in (e.g. Kurzweils). If everybody in the world was exactly like you this might work (assuming you aren’t trying to create a world that lets you sit around and drink beer in your underwear while everybody else works for you).

But we know not everybody is like you and we already know this idea won’t work. People have families they must support. There are Madoffs, Ken Lays, and Assads. Many people are lazy and selfish. A system that works must take human nature into account. If you can change the nature of 99% of people then you might have a chance at getting this to work (although I’ll contend you’ll still need money).

[Great_Antibob]

You’re still ignoring the main counterargument - how do we transition to this system. Your argument seems to be that if we start acting as if we live in a post-scarcity world, we will somehow magically achieve a post-scarcity world. You really haven’t addressed how, as a society, we make that transition.

As other posters have noted, you’re not showing how basic human nature allows us to achieve the transition. You’re simply assuming we can transition trivially.

By the way, you haven’t gotten rid of “money”, you’ve gotten rid of “currency”. You’re simply bartering. That’s still “money” in the form of the goods and services you produce for the collective.

Solar energy? Current photovoltaics aren’t “free” to make (another point you refuse to address). They require some nasty chemicals and the production of those units is an environmental nightmare waiting to happen. That’s not to say we shouldn’t continue researching them and refining the technology. But they’re not the cureall you seem to think they are.

Kurzweil? Please. That man hasn’t correctly predicted much of anything about technology, other than the basic fact that we will make advances. He has, at best, a questionable track record about both the rate and direction of technological advance. But he is a good cheerleader and speechifier, I’ll grant you that.

[Ruby_Slippers]

I don’t have nearly enough time, interest, or attention span to click all the links you provided, read all the content, watch all the videos. Can you boil it down? What kind of society are you envisioning? Agrarian? Subsistence? One where we all (or at least most) have basic necessities of food and shelter but not much beyond? In other words, what standard of living are you seeing?

[CurtC]

@Ruby_Slippers

In other words, what standard of living are you seeing?

Sounds like he envisions a society where everyone has everything they could ever want, including unicorns that fart rainbows.

[Lemur866]

Remember that the exponential increase in wealth and technology isn’t created out of thin air. It’s created by the work of human beings. Under the, you know, current capitalist system.

I agree that if wealth continues to increase, in the post-scarcity future we’ll be able to do all kinds of things that seem very difficult today, just for fun. We could provide free food and free housing and free entertainment and free medical care to everyone, and it would only take a small fraction of our economy.

However, we aren’t exactly in that future yet, are we? Fact is, most people work because if they don’t work they don’t get food, housing, or medical care. I know that if I could keep my current income no matter what, I’d stop going to work tomorrow. I don’t exactly hate my job, but it isn’t something I’d do out of pure love. If I spent my time doing things I loved to do, I’d be playing video games, watching porn, and digging up fossils. Oh, and my kids, yeah, taking care of my kids. And then how would the job I currently do get done?

There are lots of jobs that people would do as a hobby, even if they didn’t need to do them to get paid. Musicians, artists, religious vocations, scientists, writers (I’m writing this post for free, after all), and so forth. But you’re going to find damn few garbagemen who collect trash day after day for the love of collecting trash. I mean, I will pick up random litter I see lying around just because I don’t like trash, and so will a lot of people. That means I pick it up and spend 30 seconds dumping it in a trash can. But I’m not going to spend 40 hours a week picking up trash.

Hey, in the future when we have robots and replicators to do all this sort of work and we’re in a Star Trek style future where most people don’t have to work for a living and people only work for fun, then give me a call. Such a future is not going to materialize in the next decade, or in the next, or in the next.

[tomcar]

Scotty Mo, I would highly encourage you to talk to some people who have been a part of communities who have adopted self-sufficient ideals. There are several in the US that have been around since the 60’s. They can give you many of the problems (and successes) they have encountered.

[Mangetout]

It’ll only work if most forms of production can, in practical terms, massively overwhelm demand. And that just isn’t the case. We can’t generate a hundred times the amount of energy we really want/need, nor produce a hundred times the food we require. We are not in a position to build a post-scarcity scenario - even with a magic wand, the margin is quite tight, and without the magic wand, the tight margin makes the transition impossible.

[FinnAgain]

While we’re at it, I’d really like a house on the beach, preferably far enough away from any neighbors that I never, ever have to see 'em if I don’t want to. How exactly does that work in magictopia?

[XT]

@Mangetout

It’ll only work if most forms of production can, in practical terms, massively overwhelm demand. And that just isn’t the case. We can’t generate a hundred times the amount of energy we really want/need, nor produce a hundred times the food we require. We are not in a position to build a post-scarcity scenario - even with a magic wand, the margin is quite tight, and without the magic wand, the tight margin makes the transition impossible.

Well, there is another fundamental problem after you fix the magical production of goods, services and energy though. Logistics. How do you get all that stuff to everyone in the world? One of the problems the OP listed that he figures would be solved by this Zeitgeist bandwagon thingy is food for the starving multitude. Problem is, we actually make (or could make) sufficient food to feed everyone today. Great…but. How do you get the food to the folks who need it in the various backwaters of the world? Answer…no idea. And no one else has figured it out either. You either get food rotting on the docks somewhere because they don’t have the infrastructure to get it where it’s needed, or being seized by some idiotic warlord and his pack of goons…or burned or otherwise destroyed long before it gets to the folks that need it. The US, Europe and various others have spent billions trying to feed the starving masses, yearning for something to eat, and mostly it’s been in vain. Hell, look at those mad idiots in North Vietnam as an example. How would getting rid of evil capitalism fix the problem, even if we had magic production?

And, of course, we DON’T have magic and unlimited production. It’s not capitalism that’s standing in the way of getting unlimited free energy, unlimited goods and services and a sausage, pepperoni and extra cheese pizza in every pot (plus the pot…I’ll take mine extra strong). It’s reality.

[Chimera]

Yeah, this silly little inconvenience called “Reality” strikes again.