If you produce as much as you can, then you have wasted resources building more power plants than anyone can currently use.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/29/2008 11:52:53 AM

electricity comes from the Progress Energy's Arch Mage using his mana to create the power that goes through the lines according to [user]GolderViper[/user]. I mean why should we have to pay for electricity [/sarcasm].

As much as I hate posts from GV and hooksaw at least i can eat some magical mushrooms and enter the same dillusional hippy world as GoldenViper

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 12:07 PM. Reason : a]

1/29/2008 12:06:39 PM

attn: GoldenViper

hard work motherfucker, not entitlement

1/29/2008 12:07:58 PM

He's not entirely off the mark.

Nuclear power was marketed initially as making power practically free for everyone.

1/29/2008 12:24:09 PM

marketing huh

and Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc are marketed as caring about more than just money and power too

1/29/2008 12:34:13 PM

I mean I know what you're trying to say, but really I don't think its necessary.

1/29/2008 1:40:57 PM

Quote :

"If you produce as much as you can, then you have wasted resources building more power plants than anyone can currently use."

It's not necessarily about building power plants or factory. It's often about choosing to operate the machines already in place. This why technocrats stress the importance of load factor. It's about efficiency.

Currently, we have the government paying farmers not to produce.

1/29/2008 2:08:01 PM

who's gonna pay for the fuel to run the plants, who's gonna pay for the qualified and trained professionals to run the plant (i do not think anyone is going to spend 4 years taking nuclear engineering and hours of onsite training to run the power plant for the good of humanity), how are we going to pay for all the necessary maintenance and safeguards to ensure the plant doesn't melt down, are para-military personal going to volunteer their time to ensure no wrong doers gain unauthorized access to the plant??

GoldenViper please wake up out of your LSD trip and rejoin us in the real world.


I think we can all understand the difference between farmer joe getting 20K from the government with the logistics and monstrous overhead of running a nuclear power plant.

I think we all know what happens when we make a mistake with nuclear



[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 2:31 PM. Reason : aa]

1/29/2008 2:28:55 PM

^Why can't we all pay for it?

Maximize it for efficiency and then we all pay a little. And some people don't pay at all.

That seems better to me than us paying a lot, and some people going without.

We're so concerned about what the other guy is getting...we're willing to fuck ourselves over as long as we think the other guy is getting fucked harder.

1/29/2008 3:28:08 PM

Quote :

"we all pay a little. And some people don't pay at all. That seems better to me than us paying a lot, and some people going without."

what? how do "we all pay a little" instead of "paying a lot"???

how do i pay less and more people get power???

1/29/2008 3:32:28 PM

You eliminate the element of profits and bloated salaries, etc...

1/29/2008 4:04:06 PM

LOL at this thread.

This reminds me of a patient and program here. On my electric bill there is a place to give more to "help neighbors" with thier powerbills. I used to give an extra 20 bucks a month to this program. However, one day I had a lady who said she kept her heat on 80 during the winter because she hated the cold. I asked her how she could afford that and she said she didnt pay for her powerbill. She said it was free.

So here I am, the dumbass with the programmable thermometer that keeps yoru house under 70 and down to 62 during hte day to save money, AND giving more to "help neighbors". Ive never given an extra dollar since and have resolved to the fact that if people dont have to pay for anything they will waste/abuse it.. whatever it is.

1/29/2008 4:07:27 PM

^Yeah, you've told that story before.

I don't think it's necessarily true that people will waste and abuse things if they are "free." I imagine it's certianly a tendency in our society, but we can change that. We're not doomed to be greedy, wasteful little children just aching to dick people over and get away with it.

1/29/2008 4:24:14 PM

Quote :

"(i do not think anyone is going to spend 4 years taking nuclear engineering and hours of onsite training to run the power plant for the good of humanity)"

Why not? While this is a legitimate issue, many people enjoy useful work. Despite what we've been conditioned to think, the price system is not the only way to motivate people. In fact, various studies suggest people perform worse when working for a reward.

Quote :

"GoldenViper please wake up out of your LSD trip and rejoin us in the real world."

Oddly enough, I don't use drugs beyond caffeine and chocolate.

Quote :

"Maximize it for efficiency and then we all pay a little. And some people don't pay at all."

Replace pay with work, that's technocracy's solution. Optimize the system, then divide the required human labor amongst the available humans. It comes out to everyone working perhaps 15-20 hours per week.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : meow]

1/29/2008 4:31:25 PM

^^

-for the most part.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 4:31 PM. Reason : >.<]

1/29/2008 4:31:42 PM

^^ What happens if there is someone who doesn't want to work or has no desire to learn?

1/29/2008 4:39:15 PM

How do you manage to drive or ride airplanes if you consistently factor in worst case scenarios?

1/29/2008 4:39:52 PM

^^ Social pressure is the traditional answer. As long the problem's relatively limited, it hardly matters.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : win]

1/29/2008 4:40:59 PM

So you are saying as long as the amount of lazy / stupid people is limited it won't be a problem?

1/29/2008 4:42:37 PM

Quote :

"So you are saying as long as the amount of lazy / stupid people is limited it won't be a problem?"

Indeed. Workers might be annoyed with them, but there would still be plenty for all.

I'll grant that such a system may be effectively impossible at present, because of how humans behave. However, advances in the next decades will likely enable us to produce for everyone without any human effort. The machines could literally do everything.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 4:47 PM. Reason : future]

1/29/2008 4:43:43 PM

You're giving the majority of the population waaaaaaaaaaay too much credit here.

1/29/2008 4:46:21 PM

Stop editing after I post and stop watching the Terminator movies.

1/29/2008 4:48:54 PM

Yes, that is what a capitalist would say.

"It's okay to be a greedy, selfish jerk, y'all! Everybody's doing it. It's human nature!"

Maybe you're right. Sooner or later, though, we can change human nature too.

1/29/2008 4:49:20 PM

Not in a few decades.

1/29/2008 4:55:59 PM

Yes, in a few decades. Nanotechnology and AI are poised to make us masters of the physical world.

1/29/2008 5:01:17 PM

WTF are you guys talking about? You want people to work for free? You want people to build powerplants and work them for nothing? Tell me im missing your arguement.

As for the old guy example, yeah he should die for nothing more than not finding help and free meals/housing. We have how many charities out there and programs?

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2008 5:03:13 PM

Quote :

"I imagine it's certianly a tendency in our society, but we can change that. We're not doomed to be greedy, wasteful little children just aching to dick people over and get away with it."

Being wasteful with a common resource has nothing to do with greed - it's simply an incentive problem. Given a lack of incentive to act otherwise, why shouldn't someone say, keep their heat at 80 in the winter, fish lakes until they've caught whatever amount they want, hunt game to their heart's content, etc.

One doesn't have to be selfish to see that there's an inherent incentives problem with any rivalrous common resource - no incentive conserve, while there are incentives to consume. And this has nothing to do with capitalism as an economic system - this is basically just a question of whenever a resource is a "free for all," no competing incentive exists to curb consumption.

Think of it like the animal kingdom - when a natural predator is removed from the environment, no check exists upon the previously preyed upon animal reproducing until it exceeds the carrying capacity - and then the population slowly dies off from starvation. Competing incentives - like, for instance, price signals - work a lot the same way to keep demand in check. Remove those, and nothing keeps demand from spiraling out of control - again, not even out of greed. Simply because nothing serves to oppose it.

1/29/2008 5:04:42 PM

Quote :

"You want people to work for free? You want people to build powerplants and work them for nothing? Tell me im missing your arguement."

That's about right, yes. No one would be paid, as such. Everyone would get an equal share of energy credits. The abundance of production would be available to all.

1/29/2008 5:05:11 PM

So, what happens if I want my heat on 80 and use up my allocated energy credits that month. You going to turn off my heat then?

1/29/2008 5:15:18 PM

Quote :

"Social pressure is the traditional answer."

a lot of good that does when trying to 'pressure' lazy people to work hard

1/29/2008 5:23:20 PM

What if you have a bigger house? With "free" energy, why not leave the doors open in the summer, hotwater running allday, etc.

Social pressures used to keep some people off welfare, not anymore. If you say anything negative about anyone on the system you are called a prick or worse.

1/29/2008 5:26:16 PM

yeah if i had unlimited "free" energy i'd probably leave my oven on at 350 or 400 all the time juts so i didnt have to preheat...i'd definitely leave all lights and electronics and appliances on, cause i mean, i aint payin for it and i dont have to be responsible for my own actions!

1/29/2008 5:28:17 PM

Quote :

"Why can't we all pay for it? Maximize it for efficiency and then we all pay a little. And some people don't pay at all. That seems better to me than us paying a lot, and some people going without. We're so concerned about what the other guy is getting...we're willing to fuck ourselves over as long as we think the other guy is getting fucked harder."

this is why utilities pretty much have a monopoly within a region and are placed under strict gov't regulations. As it now we ALL chip in for a utility lets say electricity depending on our use.

Don't get me wrong GV i'd love free electricity. I'd keep my heat set to 76 during the winter and have my AC pumping full blast in the summer. I could even leave my door porch door open in winter time to get a "warm breeze" as i smoke a cig. It would be awesome! I also would not have to worry about turning my lights off or wasting electricity any other way.

Quote :

"Why not? While this is a legitimate issue, many people enjoy useful work. Despite what we've been conditioned to think, the price system is not the only way to motivate people. In fact, various studies suggest people perform worse when working for a reward."

As compared to what??? working to not get the whip as slave labor.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 5:48 PM. Reason : a]

1/29/2008 5:46:12 PM

Quote :

"So, what happens if I want my heat on 80 and use up my allocated energy credits that month. You going to turn off my heat then?"

The technocrats, might, yes. However, if you wanted to use your energy credits for that purpose, I suspect you'd have enough. Now, if you were purposefully trying to waste as much energy as possible, I bet you could cause trouble. Ideally, the system would be designed to prevent waste. In addition, your comrades would discourage you from such behavior.

Quote :

"yeah if i had unlimited "free" energy i'd probably leave my oven on at 350 or 400 all the time juts so i didnt have to preheat...i'd definitely leave all lights and electronics and appliances on"

Really? I wouldn't. As I currently live at home, I don't directly pay power bills. This doesn't encourage me to leave all possible electric appliances on.

Quote :

"As compared to what??? working to not get the whip as slave labor."

Working because the task is worth doing. Yes, I know this is hard to imagine in our society.

1/29/2008 7:17:07 PM

When I say turn off his power I'm wrong but yet you say the technocrats might...

1/29/2008 7:58:46 PM

Quote :

"When I say turn off his power I'm wrong but yet you say the technocrats might..."

Well, I think it would be wrong in either case. I don't know technocracy's official position on the matter. Such a society would provide plenty of power for heating your home, so it wouldn't be like the previous example. Now, if you purposefully tried to waste energy, they might use force against you. They haven't abandoned it completely. I prefer my technocracy with extra anarchism.

If there's enough of something, as there is of most things, you shouldn't prevent people from using it for basic needs. Currently, the system is setup to do exactly that.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 8:30 PM. Reason : few]

1/29/2008 8:29:49 PM

Quote :

"Working because the task is worth doing. Yes, I know this is hard to imagine in our society."

Hell yeah dude let me know when you get this society up and going. The only tasks i feel like doing is sittin on my futon smoking a bowl while playing video games, then maybe getting up once and while to fuck some bitches or maybe work on my tan.

Hopefully my comrades will bring me some food that i'll exchange for my pot.

1/29/2008 8:32:06 PM

Quote :

"Hell yeah dude let me know when you get this society up and going."

If happens, it'll almost certainly be because of technological advances. Once the machines do everything, you really will be able to smoke pot all day if that's what you like. By then, I suspect there will be better options.

1/29/2008 8:43:49 PM

you;ve been watching too much Star Trek

1/29/2008 9:00:30 PM

Such a society should become feasible within a few decades. The production revolution from molecular nanotechnology combined with strong AI would do it. However, I harbor no illusions about the powers that be allowing this society to develop.

1/29/2008 9:14:27 PM

Quote :

"Everyone would get an equal share of energy credits."

What if I work harder/faster/more efficient than other people?

This sounds like communism to me. I think you're a few decades late, not early...

1/29/2008 9:44:32 PM

It just so happens that human wants are unlimited. Over the past 20 years machines and computers have doubled our hourly production. Workers responded by working more, not less. It turns out that people really want the products being produced and increasing productivity just increases the losses from not working.

If we all wanted to work 20 hours a week we could have done it long ago, but we refused. What makes you think it will be different when productivity doubles this time?

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/29/2008 9:49:30 PM

Quote :

"What if I work harder/faster/more efficient than other people?"

Ideally, that will please you. You'll enjoy doing your job well. Giving you more than the others would be pointless. They'll be plenty for you and everyone else.

Quote :

"This sounds like communism to me."

Technocracy is similar, yes. It's as if I'm the new Kris. This is hilarious.

Quote :

"It just so happens that human wants are unlimited."

That might be true of some folks, but it isn't true for the entire species. More importantly, there's only so much anyone can actually consume. Under technocracy, you won't be able to own a fleet of a solid-gold SUVs, but you'll have transportation available whenever you want it. It will only prevent pointless hoarding and power displays.

Quote :

"Over the past 20 years machines and computers have doubled our hourly production. Workers responded by working more, not less."

Under the vastly inefficient price system, sure. By the way, note that Europeans work fewer hours.

Quote :

"It turns out that people really want the products being produced and increasing productivity just increases the losses from not working."

Technocracy wouldn't decrease access to such products. Instead, it would dramatically increase it for all save perhaps the very richest.

Quote :

"What makes you think it will be different when productivity doubles this time?"

What makes you think the price system will endure forever? That aside, the predicted advances are rather more profound than what has come before. We anarchists may be able to grab nanofactories and become self-sufficient. This is, of course, if the powers that be let us, which they won't. At best, they might give us exile on the moon. I doubt they'll be so generous.

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM. Reason : exile]

1/29/2008 10:15:54 PM

Europeans work less hours...good point. Do you also know thier unemployment rates? If given the option to work and get paid, or not work and get paid... most will not work.

Im kinda mad at myself for even posting in this thread. What a strange idea that has no chance of working.

1/29/2008 10:24:44 PM

Quote :

"What makes you think the price system will endure forever?"

That is a separate question. But, if I wanted to answer my own question and yours, historically price systems have survived productivity growth very well. Many would say they have only gotten stronger with time. Similarly, historically workers have not held consumption flat and worked fewer hours. That is not how they want to spend their time.

So, for the past thousand years price systems have developed and become permanent; workers have dramatically increased consumption to keep up with productivity. You are suggesting that these two trends will suddenly and inexplicably cease and decist. I don't think so.

Finally, even nanofactories cannot eliminate your need for other people. Even if 'stuff' becomes plentiful to the point of being almost free (a few cents for a new car), there will always be scarcity. Not everyone can live in a California beach house. Many millions can, but not billions. There will need to be a system for rationing access to such property to those that want it most. The problem is, not all property is identical, so the organizational complexity becomes prohibitive.

1/30/2008 2:33:37 AM

In the ideal society I would have 20 bitches sitting around waiting on my every want and desire.

1/30/2008 8:27:50 AM

^That would not be an ideal society for the twenty bitches.

Try again.

Your ideal society is self-centered and lacks vision. You could have twenty bitches waiting on you right now.

And how can you be interested in that but turn your nose up at GV's thoughts about having robots waiting on all of us?

I'm not down with a technocracy cause I don't want technological types completely running the world. It's depersonalizing and allows for more inhumanity, in my opinion. Plus, let's be honest...they're nerds. They'd have like half our resources going towards making Sandra Bullockish sex companions.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason : sss]

1/30/2008 10:29:44 AM

Quote :

"You are suggesting that these two trends will suddenly and inexplicably cease and decist. I don't think so."

I don't think we're communicating effectively. First of all, I don't believe production and consumption would suddenly become static under technocracy. People would likely continuing consuming and producing more as technology advanced, as we do today. Indeed, our energy needs might grow so much that we would eventually build a Dyson sphere.

Second, I don't necessarily believe the coming technological advances will end the price the price system. I hope so, but I kind of doubt it. I know how powerful the masters are. However, even if these advances only allow some of us to escape it, that will be a boon.

Quote :

"Even if 'stuff' becomes plentiful to the point of being almost free (a few cents for a new car), there will always be scarcity."

Of some things, yes. No question about that. In any society, humans would have find a way to distribute the rarer things. This doesn't mean the abundant basics should be included in such a system. You could have a separate barter system or even price system for things energy can't reproduce. This, more or less, is technocracy's way to handle the issue.

1/30/2008 10:38:08 AM

But GV, the price system already handles the 'infinite production' eventuality: the price drops to near zero. So we do not need to do anything; we don't need to abandon money, we don't need to change how people think, we don't even need to pass a single law. Two companies will develop nanofactories and compete fiercely until the price of compatible products is mere pennies. Such an eventuality would make money worth more as a dollar buys far more things, not less.

1/30/2008 11:23:27 AM

we are the borg resistance is futile

1/30/2008 12:02:04 PM