Also, could we even live sustainably in such a heavily-mechanised world? Terminator scenarios aside, automating and industrialising every single thing sounds to me like a way to ensure the extinction of the human race. Build a big machine, wind it up and set it going, then cower inside it as it consumes everything, then runs down.
Even leaving aside the impossibility of having everything in human life that has value done by machines, what would the humans do in your (or ZM’s) scenario? Eat, shit and procreate?
Nope, none. I work in network engineering because I’m good at it, and because I make a lot of money doing what I do. My skills are in demand. However, given my druthers, and without any incentives to continue to do this job, I’d much rather play computer games, read novels and judge wet tee-shirt contests. Why exactly should I do a job that is mentally and emotionally demanding, that cuts into my game, porn and family time (not to mention my posting time on the SD), and is full of stress, when, for the same rewards, I could do something that doesn’t have those things in it?? Seriously…very few people get into the fields they are in purely because they love the work to the exclusion of any reward at all. And almost none of those very few people are in the really high level, high stress positions that society actually needs to function.
The point is, who decides what people should have? Your AI program? Based on what, exactly? The wishes of the majority? Resources? Coin flips or animal entrails?
Here is the thing…you (and ZM) are trying to ‘fix’ a problem that doesn’t need a fix. We ALREADY have a system that enables us to allocate resources in a balance between efficiency, need and desire. Why do you think it’s been so successful? Because fat cat ‘capitalists’ are tricking the majority of people on the planet into believing it?? It’s successful because it WORKS…and it works better than any other system yet devised. For all it’s flaws, for all the problems and concerns, the countries with the highest standards of living on the earth and for the entire history of mankind are those who use a market system of some kind or other. Period. End of story.
So, if I get a house on a beach that is wanted by many other people I can just thumb my nose at them, because I got there first? And I can keep it for as long as I like, giving it up only if I decide to move? Do you not see the basic flaws and massive possibilities for abuse of such a system? And, in the end, how it will undermine the very thing you are trying to do, since regardless of whether there is ‘money’ or not, people will find a way to trade or exchange value for value?
How does ZM propose to motivate them? I’m a problem solver…why should I solve problems for you though? What do I get out of it? I mean, if I get the exact same as someone who doesn’t perform, then why should I put myself into a position of responsibility and stress? And if I DID decide to join the team, but also decided to sit around and do nothing, I can stay for as long as I like anyway, even if people decide they would really rather I moved on? Do you realize what that would do to a team??
You need to think of this stuff in real world terms, man…and stop listening to the fluff-heads at ZM, who obviously don’t have a ‘reality’ bone in their squishy little bodies. 
I’m an expert in the field of network engineering, with degrees in aero-space engineering and computer science. How will you motivate me to work up a curriculum, which would be a lot of work? What incentive do I or any of the so-called experts you are planning to use to do this work for you or society? I mean, if I get the exact same thing for sitting around on a couch eating Cheetos as I get for working up an entire curriculum to test others to figure out if they are experts? For that matter, who vets whatever I DO write? And what motivates THEM? And so on. In the end, who watches the Watchmen? And how do you motivate both the watchers and the Watchmen? You’ll need to come up with something better than ‘the good of society’, though, for a rather large percentage of human society. And whoever you DO get, I’d be extremely suspicious of, frankly…because anyone who is willing to work hard and put up with all the pain and stress you are talking about while everyone else sits around eatin’ Cheetos and playing computer games is…well, to put it frankly, there is something wrong with them. Or they have other motives, which probably have little to do with the ‘good of the people’.
No worries. Get some sleep and try and think about what nearly everyone in this thread is telling you. Not that this necessarily matters, but if so diverse a group as that found here on the 'dope is telling you something, you might want to rethink your position and check your premise and your assumptions. There might be a flaw there that will open new lines of thought and new concepts for you.
-XT
OK, I watched the video linked in the OP (god help me).
Is the Zeitgeist Movement linked to the Dharma Initiative in any way?
I liked when the narrator said “We not only NEED to move in another direction, we HAVE TO.” He’s a man of fine distinctions.
And who watches the AI? Leaving aside the impossibility of writing such an AI, who controls it? Who maintains it? How do We, the People ensure that said AI isn’t really some guy behind the curtain with ZM tattooed on his arm, pulling the levers? Some person has to program this mythical AI, after all, and they have to make myriad (almost infinite) decisions about how the AI will weight various factors, and balance various equations. How does the AI balance the equation between, say, global warming and balanced standards of living for people in Africa? For that matter, how does it decide what the standards of living should BE for a group of tribesmen in Malaysia?
If it decides that everyone needs a certain level of prosperity, then it might have to balance the equation by letting several billion people die because there aren’t enough resources, aren’t enough logistics, or because the foot print of all those people might cause environmental harm…or, it might try and grant that prosperity despite the harm to the environment, weighing human life and prosperity more than, say, the impact on the spotted owl (or on rising sea levels). And who will be the one to program in those initial parameters? And who will vet those decisions? And who will check to ensure that the program is actually running to spec, and that the law of unintended consequences isn’t biting us in the ass somewhere?
Frankly, it’s impossible. You’d have to essentially program and AI that would be a god.
And I think that you’re view of technology and it’s limitations and capabilities is more like magic. Even if we get to the point where magic pony nano-tech allows us to create limitless resources, there will still be scarcity, because no AI is going to be able to compose a good novel, paint a masterpiece, create a kicking computer game, blast out a great new tune, or hump like a wild ferret in heat…in short, there will always be scarcity as long as people value things and are willing to exchange value for value. If you make goods so abundant that everyone has every item they need, then something else will be used for exchange and something else will replace what is of value to people…and you’ll be right back where we are today, needing some kind of token or surrogate for people to be able to use as a medium of exchange.
Even if you live in a mud hut somewhere on the plains of Outer Mongolia you have something of value. Your horse, the bone necklace you wear, your hat, some stir fry…something. You are composing your posts on a computer, so assuming you didn’t go to the public library, that has value. You presumably have electricity in your mud hut, and so it’s not that much of a stretch that you might have some other appliances laying about. You are a working class guy, so you, in theory at least ‘work’, which means you have a pay check…that has value. Perhaps you drive to work in a car…which has value. You wear clothes…which have value.
So…if none of that means anything to you then I’ll gladly take it all off your hands. It might not be much (you can sign over your paychecks to me as you get them…I’m flexible :p), but it might keep me in beer and pretzels, not to mention perhaps pay for the occasional computer game or my SD subscription when it comes due…
Certainly I’m up for it. My fee would be $100/hour, plus expenses with a minimum of 10 hours, and anything over 16 hours I’d have to charge you triple time and a half. Plus beer.
See how that works? 
-XT
This new Zetigeist government really sounds a lot like ours…but with a lot more regulation, and future tech.
As an expert on luxury resource allocation, I wholeheartedly support this plan.
And if any transportation experts are out there, maybe we could get together to discuss how private jet and yacht allocation impacts caviar, jewelry, and fine wine allocation. I’m sure we can reach an interesting conclusion.
If we will also be discussing reasonable allocations of fine Cuban cigars, single malt whiskey and large breasted love muffins, count me in…
(references available on request)
-XT
Of course, of course. We experts have also been talking to the AI programming experts and they have fully endorsed our suggested… modifications to resource allocation algorithms of our future supreme ruler AI. This has nothing to do with the cases of Chateau Margaux 2000 we allocated to their offices.
Wouldn’t think of impugning your motives there…you are obviously a friend of the workers and peasants! As am I…only the best motives here! puff puff sotto voce ‘Move that fan a bit to the left, would you luv? Thanks…and could you peel me another grape? That’s a good ‘intern’, wink wink, nudge nudge’
Um…where was I?
-XT
Are prostitutes one of those crappy jobs that nobody wants that you will replace with robots? Because that doesn’t sound fun at all…
Roboticist: “OK, sexbot beta test three.”
< Whirrrgrindgrindgrind >
Beta Tester: “AHHHHH!!!”
Roboticist: “Whoa! Thought we fixed that! Someone get a mop.”
EXACTLY!
Now that we got the traits possessed in full or partially by most people, here in the open could we try to create a system better than the present one but which doesn’t require magically altering human nature almost completely?
If we can change human nature to fit the system then every system works.
Dictatorship is perfect when the dictator is kind and benevolent and wise, and so are all the people working for him, and nobody abuses the system and everybody agrees about what is best for everyone, except maybe a minor squabble about what colour to paint the new town hall.
Communism is perfect. To each according to their needs and from each according to their ability? Why that’s a perfect system if ever I saw one!
The sad thing is I actually do think people will get better, society will get better and I also believe no-one should starve or go sick and I believe, probably foolishly, that a world where the basic needs of every person are met is attainable. I do also believe that improvements in technology, new scientific knowledge and improved education are key elements in creating a better future.
But I do not for one moment believe that we can get from point A, which is society as it is now, to point B, which is the perfect technology controlled utopia of reasonable and selfless people who do not need any laws, by means of … scratch that, I don’t think we can ever get to point B, but if we ever were, and if I were to be convinced that that is the case, it would take more that just saying “Technology will do it” as if it were magic, or saying “But everyone will be reasonable” as if that were a given.
It’s so frustrating and unconvincing because it’s as if someone were arguing the case that all diseases will be eradicated by saying “Medicine will make it possible”. Well, yes, if anything, but that’s not much of an argument, is it?
Or, for another argument, it’s like starting a debate about the possibility of humans ever setting up colonies on other planets and getting a response of “Of course, technology will make it possible.”
If we were capable of setting up colonies away from Earth, would we really be wanting to take the models of Capitalism and Consumerism with us?
No system is going to pay you to believe in the power of your dreams.:rolleyes:
The basic tenets of a capitalist system is that you have a fundamental right to own your property, labor or intellectual property. You also have the right to freely engage in trade with other people in order to meet your wants and needs. People have a choice which jobs they want to compete for and which companies they want to work for or do business with. And you DO have to share in a capitalist system because we all have to pay taxes that go to the roads and schools and whatnot.
What I hear from people like you is that you don’t want to compete. You think there are infinite resources so everyone should just be able to enjoy whatever stardard of living they desire. Why should a person enjoy the same standard of living as me if I studied hard in school and work hard at my job while they just sort of half-ass it their entire life?
I imagine a pioneer colony would be some kind of co-operative or commune by design (or it would stand a poor chance of taking root).
The consumerism and capitalism would probably happen later all by themselves, even if you brainwashed all the colonists to make them forget all about extant economics and politics back home.
I don’t know about that. As I said upthread, I could see a “post-scarcity” society reverting to barter for what little trade occurs. If you want “X”, and only have “Y & Z” to give up for it, it may make more sense to put up a “Will Trade Y or Z for X” notice on the net than it would to accept money that may be of no use to you if no one is selling what you want. And capitalism on a colony wouldn’t have the kind of inertia that is likely to keep it going here on Earth more or less indefinitely.
And I doubt that a post scarcity society would be consumerist for the same reason we as a society don’t regard becoming grossly fat as a status symbol; with abundance, it’s easy. And past a certain level of abundance it becomes ridiculous; in a society where anyone so inclined could order enough consumer goods to bury themselves, no one will be impressed by how many toys you have. And a single person can only consume so much.
No doubt there would still be status symbols and power struggles and so forth; I’d just expect them to take different forms. Collecting unique objects instead of the latest consumer product, for example. But capitalism and especially consumerism aren’t inevitable features of human existence.
I suppose it depends on the kind of technology we’re assuming would accompany human expansion to other planets. If it’s Star Trek, where energy is effectively free, food and almost anything else can be replicated and you can do whatever you like in a holodeck, then there might be no pressure for capitalism and consumerism to re-emerge.
But if it’s a new planet seeded with a few hundred colonists, all of whom have to work their asses off just to survive, and have to scrape their resources out of a reluctant new earth, then the situation is ripe for the development of an economy. I’ll do your extra shift if you give me your food ration. I’ll sell you the ore I found if you help me fix my roof - etc.
That wasn’t my issue. You took it up with someone else. My point was that you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how banks, and especially mortgage banks work and remain solvent. Once you use Michael Moore as a cite referring to mortgage practices, you pretty much lose any credibility in that regard. Any further comments about how banks run the world or any other nonsense are tainted accordingly.
If you would like to raise the “other issue” with me, feel free. I be I might have a good answer. One that you most likely wont agree with or understand, but I can handle that. Give it a try.
Watch out for the HIT Marks…
Great–so this is science fiction and takes place on another planet? Because human beings, despite EVERY attempt to force humans to be otherwise, they keep ending up as “greedy materialists” (better known as “Free men/women”)
And, from the Zeitgeist Grand Poobah Peter Joseph:
I can’t tell if this Peter Joseph guy is just having a great laugh or read too many issues of Popular Mechanics circa 1912 or so. The only memes of that time he missed were “Food pills” and “Zepplins!”
And you’re seriously promoting this guy’s crackpot ideas?
This is quite a bit different, but one example they used was golf clubs.
If you go golfing and at the gold course they have the best golf clubs ever and you use them for a round of golf… you could theoretically take them with you… but why burden yourself with having to store them when whenever you go to the gold course the best will be there.
The problem is you put importance on owning and having more than someone else. Those are the values of this system, but not every system.
Also their public transportation system would be some special sort of mag lev train that crisscrossed the globe. Allowing travel faster than a jet plane, and supposedly more secure.
Personally… I would want a house. Wherever. A tablet PC with high resolution that I can use for digital art. And a job as a person who works in robotics. Even if I just solder some wires :X… Oh and one of those cars that prevent me from killing myself drunk driving.
[/QUOTE]