Coffeehouse Thread

125 posts

Resource based economy, would it work?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    androidi

    I like the pretty CGI. I've not watched this to the end yet, so far this hasn't answered the questions of motivation and control of things that don't exist abundance, I hope those are answered in the later parts. I personally know all type of people but in the current system it's hard to say are there enough self driven people to maintain such a system presented here and what about the rest who just choose to party all the time? Suppose 80% of world population would just party their entire useful lifetime Is that a good system considering we could if not educationally, genetically modify people such that they would instead do whatever is deemed to be better than just partying all night along?



    That was part 8/13, the preceding stuff is mainly the Ron Paul type whine about the current system.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Sounds like communism to me, and it didn't work out so well.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    It's circular logic:

    1. If energy was so abundant, we wouldn't need a profit-based economy
    2. If we're not in a profit-based economy, the automobile industry can't hold back those secret patents that lets us drive 100 mpg cars
    3. If we had 100 mpg cars, energy would be abundant
    ...and there's that obvious Marxist angle...

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Minh said:
    It's circular logic:
    1. If energy was so abundant, we wouldn't need a profit-based economy
    2. If we're not in a profit-based economy, the automobile industry can't hold back those secret patents that lets us drive 100 mpg cars
    3. If we had 100 mpg cars, energy would be abundant
    ...and there's that obvious Marxist angle...
    It's also a load of *, because if Shell had a magical energy serum they wouldn't hide it to protect their current oil profits, they'd invest heavilly in the magical energy serum so that they can release it and be king of the energy sector. Oil's going to stop being profitable as oil supplies run out, so Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Cinopec and Gazprom are all looking into alternative energies not because they want to stifle them, but because in 50-100 years their only source of income won't be there, and with a capital investment time of 20 years, if they don't look at alternative energies now, they go out of business (and they _are_ looking at alternative energies).

    The reason they're looking at biofuels and not solar is because biofuels already has a distribution network, provides safe hydrocarbon-based energy, is proven to work and is relatively cheap, whereas solar power is expensive, unproven, and provides less energy per hectare than rape-seed oil.

    Ironically, if we drop capitalism then we become prone to making arbitrary choices - wind is better than solar today, and tommrrow we're going to say nuclear is the future. If we let capitalism get involved (which is damn good at optimising for profit) and we define a relationship between the resource we want and this profit, we can just let capitalism optimise it, which optimises for the resource we're after at the same time. It's why capitalism works better than any other system. Capitalism might support greed or whatever, but if you want something done on a society-wide level you can do one of two things:
     1) Regulate it, i.e. make things mandatory or illegal. This is ok for things like fraud or monopolies or paying taxes, but it sucks for optimising stuff.
     2) Define a conversion between the resource you want and capitalism, and then let go. The conversion rate gets set by the markets, and the markets optimise for value, which is (by definition) the optimal production of the resource you want.

    So basically, because energy is the resource we want, we define a conversion rate (price per kWh) and say that people can purchase some amount of energy. Because of capitalism, if someone can make energy cheaper than someone else, they win (optimising production) and if I can buy appliances that are more efficient, then I win (optimising demand). Overall, capitalism is driving efficiency in production and demand of energy. 

    If you wanted to make pollution the issue, you just tax emissions (optionally putting a final cap through the markets and turning it into a zero-sum game). This means that if someone can make energy cleaner than you, they win, and if someone else can capture the pollution, or make it safe, they have a business model that capitalism can use.

    The point is that capitalism is the only non-arbitrary system for regulation of these things, and if you throw it away, you put yourself at the mercy of the whims of government, which is by and large uninformed and stupid compared to the fine-tuning effect of capitalism.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    If we have reach a technological singularity we're all human labor is obsolete, there will be no need for an economy at all. Anyways I think Marx was right, his ideas where just implemented 300-400 years too early.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    If we have reach a technological singularity we're all human labor is obsolete, there will be no need for an economy at all. Anyways I think Marx was right, his ideas where just implemented 300-400 years too early.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    In the video: "We don't pay for air or tap water"
    I don't know where he lives, but here, we pay for tap water. Water is abundant. Potable water is not.

    Anyway, the society they are advocating is basically Star Trek. Smiley

    As with all these kinds of videos, there is no mention whatsoever of the negative sides. The high costs of building solar, wind, wave and geothermal power stations. The landscape pollution from the huge amounts of solar and wind stations you would need to get enough energy. Etc.

    Also, electricity generation isn't the only use of oil. Let's take aircraft as an example because I know a lot about that. There are three major engine types in aircraft today: piston, turboprop and jet. An electrical engine would serve only as a replacement of the piston engines, and probably wouldn't even get the same power that current piston engines give (to say nothing of what the weight of the batteries or fuel cells would do to the performance of the aircraft; I don't have figures so I could be wrong of course). For long range travel, we depend on jets. Jets by their very nature require fuel, they cannot be driven electrically. So naturally, jet engine manufacturers such as Rolls Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are looking into using biofuel for jet engines. Meanwhile, they are also working to make their engines use less fuel (this also involves the aircraft manufacturers since aircraft aerodynamics are a strong factor in this). This is largely driven by the increasing oil prices that weigh more and more heavily on the airlines' profits.

    Either someone invents a completely new type of aircraft engine that's just as good as jets, or we will need fuel to run aircraft, whether fossil or biofuel or something else.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Nah, it is not going to work at all. Why? Because people are flawed and greedy. Sure some people are not greedy, like when I see Mexicans, I see them hard working, peaceful, and not greedy at all. But sadly, you can't expect everyone to be like that. There are people constantly taking advantage of others. Even just like some cheer leaders, fame becomes the trophy of greed. It is simply imposible to make people equal even though no one needs to work at all. People wants to step on other people to make them feel superior and make them feel good. It is no longer about money. Even if they have money, they want to have power and fame.

    I only watched the first part of the movie. It is quite naive. Talking about Solar, Wind, Water. Yeah sure, it can produce a lot of power, but sorry dude, we don't have super battery to store it. When it is not used, it is gone, wasted. We simply couldn't store it. So, lets see, I want to use computer at night, sorry, not sun. This is why those alternative are not practicle, not stable. We need a way to constantly generate power 24/7. Not something I have to pray to God for good weather.

    Don't want to see the rest at all. The project is not flexible at all anyway. It is a single fixed ideal way of life. Sorry, if I don't want to waste gas on my car, I will move to tiny crowded New York or San Fransisco. I want to have my garden, my own garadge, where I can drive in and I am litteratly in my house. This is the way I want to live, thus, I have to drive a car no matter it is solar powered or not.

    If they want utopia, they might as well develope a Matrix. Plug me in so I don't waste anything at all.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    androidi

    Sven Groot said:
    In the video: "We don't pay for air or tap water"
    I don't know where he lives, but here, we pay for tap water. Water is abundant. Potable water is not.

    Anyway, the society they are advocating is basically Star Trek. Smiley

    As with all these kinds of videos, there is no mention whatsoever of the negative sides. The high costs of building solar, wind, wave and geothermal power stations. The landscape pollution from the huge amounts of solar and wind stations you would need to get enough energy. Etc.

    Also, electricity generation isn't the only use of oil. Let's take aircraft as an example because I know a lot about that. There are three major engine types in aircraft today: piston, turboprop and jet. An electrical engine would serve only as a replacement of the piston engines, and probably wouldn't even get the same power that current piston engines give (to say nothing of what the weight of the batteries or fuel cells would do to the performance of the aircraft; I don't have figures so I could be wrong of course). For long range travel, we depend on jets. Jets by their very nature require fuel, they cannot be driven electrically. So naturally, jet engine manufacturers such as Rolls Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are looking into using biofuel for jet engines. Meanwhile, they are also working to make their engines use less fuel (this also involves the aircraft manufacturers since aircraft aerodynamics are a strong factor in this). This is largely driven by the increasing oil prices that weigh more and more heavily on the airlines' profits.

    Either someone invents a completely new type of aircraft engine that's just as good as jets, or we will need fuel to run aircraft, whether fossil or biofuel or something else.

    What is suggested is this 4000 mph maglev train to replace flying, the train will be floating in a vacuum.
    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic-maglev

    Also the geothermal energy suggested is not that far fetched, I just saw documentary detailing that it's already implemented on smaller scale for powering a city block by sunking 100 m deep "heatpipes" into the ground.

    I think those could be feasible but there needs to be some regulation in place eg. having ability to model the whole energy efficiency of certain type of house or the local area and then put restrictions in building houses that are made purely the cost of building in mind rather than the cost of use / energy efficiency. Infact this is already being done but as long as there are no regulation on the minimum efficiency, there will be cheaper houses that don't use say geothermal energy and not enough demand for the more efficient technology to enable mass production of the more efficient technology.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    androidi said:
    Sven Groot said:
    *snip*

    What is suggested is this 4000 mph maglev train to replace flying, the train will be floating in a vacuum.
    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic-maglev

    Also the geothermal energy suggested is not that far fetched, I just saw documentary detailing that it's already implemented on smaller scale for powering a city block by sunking 100 m deep "heatpipes" into the ground.

    I think those could be feasible but there needs to be some regulation in place eg. having ability to model the whole energy efficiency of certain type of house or the local area and then put restrictions in building houses that are made purely the cost of building in mind rather than the cost of use / energy efficiency. Infact this is already being done but as long as there are no regulation on the minimum efficiency, there will be cheaper houses that don't use say geothermal energy and not enough demand for the more efficient technology to enable mass production of the more efficient technology.

    Uhuh. I suppose this is all going to be powered by a nuclear fusion generator with a recalibrated flux engine which will project anti-gravitons into a tri-lithium diode matrix that will stabilise the warp core?

    If we venture back into reality rather than the nonsense of the "New Scientist" and other such populist fiction, we find that aeroplanes won't be disappearing anytime soon. Sven is right when he mentions biofuels in aircraft - in the EU for instance there is a minimum volume of biofuels requirement in all jet airliner fuel, but he misses the fact that the biggest consumers of oil are still power stations, followed by cars followed by the petrochemical industry, so migrating to an electrical energy system would help. The only downside is how you migrate that electricity into cars - hydrogen is too unstable - you really need to add some carbon to sure it up - but then you're back at oil again.

    Basically nothing will happen unless there's financial insentive to do it, so until there's international agreement on a carbon emissions trading scheme, there will be no real engagement with the CO2 reducing agenda. We can expect a lot of doomtalk from the media and politicians, but if politicians don't bite the bullet and put money into the picture, industry won't bother, except perhaps putting on a show for PR reasons.

  • User profile image
    kurniad001

    you cant genetically modify behavior, but you can condition behavior, the next generation will think differently if our society changes. its a way of life not a job to support our life. and no i don’t think 80% of the population will party all the time, people will get sick of it. i have had days when i got sick of sitting on my couch.  plus the system is made so we have more time to party,

  • User profile image
    kurniad001

    evildictaitor said:
    Minh said:
    *snip*
    It's also a load of *, because if Shell had a magical energy serum they wouldn't hide it to protect their current oil profits, they'd invest heavilly in the magical energy serum so that they can release it and be king of the energy sector. Oil's going to stop being profitable as oil supplies run out, so Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Cinopec and Gazprom are all looking into alternative energies not because they want to stifle them, but because in 50-100 years their only source of income won't be there, and with a capital investment time of 20 years, if they don't look at alternative energies now, they go out of business (and they _are_ looking at alternative energies).

    The reason they're looking at biofuels and not solar is because biofuels already has a distribution network, provides safe hydrocarbon-based energy, is proven to work and is relatively cheap, whereas solar power is expensive, unproven, and provides less energy per hectare than rape-seed oil.

    Ironically, if we drop capitalism then we become prone to making arbitrary choices - wind is better than solar today, and tommrrow we're going to say nuclear is the future. If we let capitalism get involved (which is damn good at optimising for profit) and we define a relationship between the resource we want and this profit, we can just let capitalism optimise it, which optimises for the resource we're after at the same time. It's why capitalism works better than any other system. Capitalism might support greed or whatever, but if you want something done on a society-wide level you can do one of two things:
     1) Regulate it, i.e. make things mandatory or illegal. This is ok for things like fraud or monopolies or paying taxes, but it sucks for optimising stuff.
     2) Define a conversion between the resource you want and capitalism, and then let go. The conversion rate gets set by the markets, and the markets optimise for value, which is (by definition) the optimal production of the resource you want.

    So basically, because energy is the resource we want, we define a conversion rate (price per kWh) and say that people can purchase some amount of energy. Because of capitalism, if someone can make energy cheaper than someone else, they win (optimising production) and if I can buy appliances that are more efficient, then I win (optimising demand). Overall, capitalism is driving efficiency in production and demand of energy. 

    If you wanted to make pollution the issue, you just tax emissions (optionally putting a final cap through the markets and turning it into a zero-sum game). This means that if someone can make energy cleaner than you, they win, and if someone else can capture the pollution, or make it safe, they have a business model that capitalism can use.

    The point is that capitalism is the only non-arbitrary system for regulation of these things, and if you throw it away, you put yourself at the mercy of the whims of government, which is by and large uninformed and stupid compared to the fine-tuning effect of capitalism.

    communism was not resource based, food was rationed. and people could not choose their jobs. shell CAN get access to the "magical serum". its solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hydroelectricity, etc.

    but, lets put ourselves in their place.. say we spent most of our lives building the oil company, we're talking about trillions of dollars, and now in the last decade we  find out now that its better to use electric cars powered by natural earth stuff, what do we do? what did they do? they bought the battery technologies and hid them.  because with better batteries more people will use electric cars, they bought and crushed the street cars just so there are more busses, they took back every electric car sold and crushed them. if you watch the documentary "who killed the electric car?" you will understand more of what they did to keep to automobile industry.

    if they lose the automobile industry, they might as well be an electric company. and no because oil prices increased it doesnt mean we are running out, our economy is based on scarcity, means less of what we have means more money for them. and they have us controlled because our world is so dependent on oil that if tommorow oil prices go up seventh fold they wouldnt loose much money, or possibly any.  people will whine and yell, but they will still go out and buy that oil.

    the venus peoject aims for humanity to improve on technology, and without money we can research as much as we want and without limit to how much we can find out and in turn it is better for us, we are only limited to our resources. solar power, wind power, etc can increase in efficiency with research. Capitalism is slowing research down, not speeding it up.

  • User profile image
    kurniad001

    Bass said:
    If we have reach a technological singularity we're all human labor is obsolete, there will be no need for an economy at all. Anyways I think Marx was right, his ideas where just implemented 300-400 years too early.

    human labor will not be obsolete, we can never reach perfection. Humanity can never be fully satisfied, if life here on earth is great, we will go to mars and live there. We will never be satisfied with doing nothing, which is what is so great about us.

  • User profile image
    kurniad001

    Sven Groot said:
    In the video: "We don't pay for air or tap water"
    I don't know where he lives, but here, we pay for tap water. Water is abundant. Potable water is not.

    Anyway, the society they are advocating is basically Star Trek. Smiley

    As with all these kinds of videos, there is no mention whatsoever of the negative sides. The high costs of building solar, wind, wave and geothermal power stations. The landscape pollution from the huge amounts of solar and wind stations you would need to get enough energy. Etc.

    Also, electricity generation isn't the only use of oil. Let's take aircraft as an example because I know a lot about that. There are three major engine types in aircraft today: piston, turboprop and jet. An electrical engine would serve only as a replacement of the piston engines, and probably wouldn't even get the same power that current piston engines give (to say nothing of what the weight of the batteries or fuel cells would do to the performance of the aircraft; I don't have figures so I could be wrong of course). For long range travel, we depend on jets. Jets by their very nature require fuel, they cannot be driven electrically. So naturally, jet engine manufacturers such as Rolls Royce, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are looking into using biofuel for jet engines. Meanwhile, they are also working to make their engines use less fuel (this also involves the aircraft manufacturers since aircraft aerodynamics are a strong factor in this). This is largely driven by the increasing oil prices that weigh more and more heavily on the airlines' profits.

    Either someone invents a completely new type of aircraft engine that's just as good as jets, or we will need fuel to run aircraft, whether fossil or biofuel or something else.

    I think he means that we don’t pay for the water its self, we pay for the filterization, transportation, and maintenance of the water. There will be no cost of building the power stations because it is a resource based economy. I think those windmills and solar panels are quite beautiful, I really don’t see it as landscape pollution. And if you worry about space, with no limit to how much we can research in a resource based economy the technology can increase in efficiency, meaning less solar panels, less windmills, less wave electricity generator. And for the aircraft part, again research will make lighter batteries, we do have the technology for lighter batteries, (e.g. Lithium Polymer Batteries, lithium-ions, etc) they are just more expensive too expensive to power an aircraft. With no money there will be no limit to how many expensive batteries you can put in.

  • User profile image
    kurniad001

    magicalclick said:

    Nah, it is not going to work at all. Why? Because people are flawed and greedy. Sure some people are not greedy, like when I see Mexicans, I see them hard working, peaceful, and not greedy at all. But sadly, you can't expect everyone to be like that. There are people constantly taking advantage of others. Even just like some cheer leaders, fame becomes the trophy of greed. It is simply imposible to make people equal even though no one needs to work at all. People wants to step on other people to make them feel superior and make them feel good. It is no longer about money. Even if they have money, they want to have power and fame.

    I only watched the first part of the movie. It is quite naive. Talking about Solar, Wind, Water. Yeah sure, it can produce a lot of power, but sorry dude, we don't have super battery to store it. When it is not used, it is gone, wasted. We simply couldn't store it. So, lets see, I want to use computer at night, sorry, not sun. This is why those alternative are not practicle, not stable. We need a way to constantly generate power 24/7. Not something I have to pray to God for good weather.

    Don't want to see the rest at all. The project is not flexible at all anyway. It is a single fixed ideal way of life. Sorry, if I don't want to waste gas on my car, I will move to tiny crowded New York or San Fransisco. I want to have my garden, my own garadge, where I can drive in and I am litteratly in my house. This is the way I want to live, thus, I have to drive a car no matter it is solar powered or not.

    If they want utopia, they might as well develope a Matrix. Plug me in so I don't waste anything at all.

    the conditioning of people will change the way people think, they way your family or your society raise you up is your conditioning, you learn your right and wrong from them. in the past many of the things we do is absurd, but it has changed and it will in the future. There will be no greed for power if there is no competition if we all work towards the same goal, it might sound like a fantasy world to us, but it is possible.

    yes it is quite obvious you can run your computer at night. I live in Toronto and we have hydroelectricity and I’m on the computer right now when it is dark outside. I think you shouldn’t watch the 10 minute video, you should watch the full documentary, 2 hours and 3 minutes long, its called “zeitgeist – addendum” Google it (its free)

    P.s. Matrix doesn’t give you food.

  • User profile image
    kurniad001

    I have watched the whole 2 hour and 3 minute documentary and all the problems addressed in this post is already addressed in the video.  I think the venus project would work and it would be great, the only problem is converting to it. its called "Zeitgeist addendum" I was lured into watching the video coz my friend told me that saddam is a good person and proved to me in the documentary. i recommend anyone who is interested in the venus project to watch the documentary, whether you are agaisnt it or for it.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

  • User profile image
    iStation

    Solar!
    ...
        So I went on for some days cutting and hewing timber, and also studs and rafters, all with my narrow axe, not having many communicable or scholar-like thoughts, singing to myself, --

                      Men say they know many things;
                      But lo! they have taken wings --
                      The arts and sciences,
                      And a thousand appliances;
                      The wind that blows
                      Is all that any body knows.
    ...
    Henry David Thoreau, "Walden," Economy
    Smiley

  • User profile image
    ManipUni

    Total nonsense.

    I'm not even going to explain why this is nonsense because I feel I would be insulting your intelligence. These people are so off into the clouds that it isn't even amusing.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.