Is automation good or bad for [your nation here]‘s economy?
Robots are taking an increasingly larger role in manufacturing. Jobs that used to be shipped to low cost labor markets may now be staying closer to technological centers where robots are developed. Narrow artificial intelligences are getting into the job market as well. There are limited AIs answering phones, writing sports stories, and getting ready to invade the legal and medical industries as well. Automation is changing the economy. Is that a good change…and if so, for who?
Related Stories
Connect With Us
Subscribe by Email
Post a Comment
Get Our Newsletter
Debate Stats
Total Comments: (117)
Date Started: April 1, 2011 - 2:45 am
Popular On The Hub
Martin Ford Asks: Will Automation Lead to Economic Collapse?
Written by: Aaron Saenz 716 days ago
Will the future be filled with cool technologies and endless opportunities or will our own creations lead to eventual doom? [...]
5 Axis Robot Carves Metal Like Butter (Video)
Written by: Aaron Saenz 605 days ago
Industrial robots are getting precise enough that they’re less like dumb machines and more like automated sculptors producing artwork. Case [...]
Designer Babies – Like It Or Not, Here They Come
Written by: Keith Kleiner 1009 days ago
Long before Watson and Crick famously uncovered the structure of DNA in 1953, people envisioned with both horror and hope [...]
Comments
I’ve never held a job I wouldn’t gladly program a robot for to replace me. God what I’d give to have a robot to program–I sure failed at programming my supervisors and managers. Look, stupid people need to be replaced; it’s just a fact, an inevitable conclusion of basic observation and logic. If people starve, so be it. We’re not pet breeders. We’re not raising humans just for the sake of it, because they’re cute or something. The race either moves forward or we all die, so we need to leave some stragglers behind. For the survivors, the “economy” will be a world of endless plenty. For the stragglers, Hell on Earth; and I’m okay with that. I would even feel okay with it if I can’t keep up the pace, so long as the process is fair, and I don’t see how an evolutionary process could be unfair. The worst outcome in my opinion would be if human governments try to interfere with the inevitable march of progress. Enforced stagnation would be a death sentence for all of us.
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement that is cropping up all across the country is an excellent forum to get some of these ideas out in front of the nation. At the moment the movement doesn’t have any real leadership and their not proposing any solidified solutions yet, but I’d like to see any changes that do emerge have a great deal of understanding about the ramifications of automation.
Everyone on this board has very different opinions about how the automation will impact the economy, but I think a point that we all can agree on is that the current economic model is not built to handle the changes that automation will bring about. I’d like to get this conversation into the public arena and on a larger stage where the resources are available to test some of these theories.
Not gonna play out that way. It is Pollyannaish to think so. The Price System destroys itself.
There will NOT be a mass movement. The information of change was around in the 1930′s and known then… but this system will or can not accept that… so probably after the roof caves in… if there is some kind of survival it may look like this… https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_130x3pmnh&hl=en&pli=1 Price System Demise
@Johnny
“Yeah bllllaahh blah blah.
How many people can we kill to make money?
No one cares in this system… you sure don’t.
I hate people like you.
Don’t give a rats ass and will take the penny’s off your dead grandma’s eyes.
Maybe incentive to bomb the piss out of your neighbor country…”
Appealing to the emotional side of people instead of relying on logical scientific debate? you’re sinking lower and lower.
Answer my question: If you hate the price system so much, what’s the point of Energy Certificates?
The price system creates winners and losers, haves and have nots, which means the wealth of the world is divided unequally. The energy credit system doesn’t include money rather than a credit that is a benefit provided to each citizen equally regardless of what they do or don’t do. The total amount of energy or resources produced get spread across the population because their is enough resources to provide for everyone. Each individual still gets to choose what their portion of energy is “spent” upon but the wealth of this world becomes available to everyone.
”The energy credit system doesn’t include money rather than a credit that is a benefit provided to each citizen equally regardless of what they do or don’t do.” end quote Kristof….
You have this wrong. It is not a ‘credit’ system. This is an important point. Many self styled ‘Technocracy experts’ get this wrong because they do not understand that this is not a ‘value’ system https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_82cb2rcg&hl=en
Also
”Each individual still gets to choose what their portion of energy is “spent” upon but the wealth of this world becomes available to everyone.” End quote Kristof.
Spending?
No. This is a non monetary system and your just confusing people by explaining this that way.
Energy accounting just measures resources.
Thats all… to population and ecologic limits.
Read this and stop using fake analogies https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_70cmz88f&hl=en I am the Price System!
Technocracy and their energy certificate scheme could never work because they do not measure human labor as a cost.
Labor is an economic resource that must be rationed and accounted for just like any other resource. If 2 goods were produced that consumed the same amount of energy but 1 good required 5000 people to work on and the other required 5 people, according to technocracy’s accounting system, they would both be priced the same!!
So obviously it is not an accurate way to measure cost. Clearly, something that requires 1000 times more labor is more expensive.
The second problem with Technocracy is that you get paid your energy units whether you work or not. So there is no incentive to actually work.
Without an incentive to work, productivity will plummet.
The ideal economic system is one where you set labor standards nationally where you are paid to go to school (education is an investment item not a consumption item) so obsolete jobs don’t ruin people’s lives, you are paid equal income for equal effort, automation is made a priority, the work week is reduced to 25 hours, vacation is 3 months yearly and everyone gets a pension at 65 regardless of whether you continue to work.
If income was paid out equally it would be $127,000 per year, enough to make everyone wealthy. However, since difficult jobs require harder work, they should be paid more.
So you could pay everyone $115,000 per year. And if you work a job that requires more physical or mental effort (science, computers, engineering, doctors, construction, mining, farming), you get paid twice that amount, $230,000 per year.
Getting paid twice the amount is probably enough incentive to get people to do difficult work and is a fair compensation for the extra effort required.
Under such a system, the cost and price of everything is just the amount of labor it took to produce.
Since ALL production comes from labor, including the production of energy, the cost of anything is how much of our labor was used up in its production.
Well in a technocracy, the means of production are automated. Human labour doesn’t have to function in the pricing of goods, which means things will actually be capable of truly being market value (that is; value of materials used, and energy used in production vs [quantity vs demand]). I think the thing to do would be to make education free to promote more fiscal literacy, then give generous incentives to small business ownership. You reduce costs as much as you can for people to start a business and you’ll have your innovation and employment problems solved. none of this guaranteed living income stuff, with automation we should encourage our citizens to make use of this technology for themselves rather than rely on the government for it
We will never reach a point in our lifetimes where labor is no longer needed in production. But when we do, scarcity will also be eliminated so rationing goods will be pointless anyway. At that point, you won’t need to use energy units to ration goods and services.
A guaranteed income has absolutely nothing to do with whether people use technology! I’m not sure what you mean by that.
97% of all workers make less than the average $127k income. Market allocation of income instead of democratic allocation of income is barbaric and inefficient. Treating people like heads of cattle where your entire quality of life and standard of living depends on your ability to sell yourself in an open market is cruel and uncivilized.
The ancient system of selling your labor leaves 97% with below average incomes, 45 million in poverty and tens of millions unemployed with no income. It needs to be replaced with democracy where your income and benefits are guaranteed so that 100% are wealthy as a right.
Democracy means slave society to other peoples opinions.
Jail if you disagree.
Technocracy protects people from special interest groups… of one or a million.
Gattica… vote for Corporatacracy.
What a bunch of no nothing small minded people… like you… then make some laws… vote your ass off… contract society… ha ha.
Democracy means power over SUBJECTIVE decisions (like what kind of lifestyle you want to lead and what products you want produced) is equal.
Democracy does not mean mob rule and does not mean a slave to other people’s opinions.
A democracy does not mean when someone chooses to wear a red short, that everyone is forced to wear red shirts!
BUT YOU AVOIDED THE QUESTION:
Since you claim labor is no longer needed, name a single good or service that is produced without labor.
You can’t. Because you have no idea how the world works.
.
“Everything in a technate is free.”
Ha! So now everything won’t be priced in energy units which requires you to spend your energy unit income on!?!?!
You make no sense. You are just an angry, clueless man.
I consider you either a troll or clown or just victim.
Stop writing now. You lost any arguments long ago.
Your not well rounded enough to understand the subject here about even so called ‘democracy’
”A boom in trade using standardized coins may have helped to set the scene in Athens to experiment with democracy. Special interest representatives made orations of rhetorical device for votes on various issues, and certain speakers that influenced public opinion became famous citizens, Pericles being one of the most famous.
Democracy worked to a certain degree to empower certain special interest groups (Delian League) with wealth, status and prestige.
Some Athenians became wealthy through trade and war.
“ In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” -George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
Actually, Democracy means “rule by the people”.
Gattica, you’re right. Pure democracy will inevitably lead to a kind of socialist state; strictly because the rich will always be out numbered by the middle and lower classes. But in that scenario, you have a tyranny of the majority. If modern history has taught us anything, the mob is wrong almost every time.
“the rich will always be out numbered by the middle and lower classes…in that scenario, you have a tyranny of the majority.”
So then you advocate tyranny of the minority? No thanks. You are stuck in another century. Equality and freedom is the only humane way to organize a society, not based on the capitalist system of privileges and classes.
You don’t understand democracy. Democracy is the end of tyranny. Capitalism is tyranny of the rich, tyranny of the very, very, very small minority.
Democracy is freedom, equality and science. It is the opposite of capitalism. It is the end of tyranny.
You have the FREEDOM to live whatever lifestyle you want so long as you do not violate that same right in others. Everyone has an EQUAL power to build that lifestyle. And the purpose of SCIENCE is to make those lifestyles possible.
There are no classes, so there is no tyranny.
We both have the same means to build whatever life we want. I don’t get to tell you how to live your life and you don’t get to tell me how to live mine. I don’t have to beg you or anyone else for a job and you don’t have to do the same. I don’t have to convince you or anyone else to pay me enough to live a wealthy lifestyle and you don’t have to do the same.
no, I’m just aware that absolute freedom is no better than chaos. We need a hierarchy, we need something better than ourselves to strive towards. Those are just base human needs if a human is to be “civilized”. I use the term loosely because there are “primitive” peoples that do pretty good for themselves (all things considered), they still have hierarchies in their societies.
Capitalism is simply the means for people to control capital to make wealth. It’s not a governing system, it’s an economic system. Socialists often confuse the 2. When governments in the west start using “universal healthcare”, what they’re really doing is allowing a private monopoly on the healthcare industry. State-Capitalism isn’t capitalism, it’s a product of Fascism, and more recently, Social Democracy.
You don’t have to beg because in the society you’re promoting, the government is your livelihood. Absolutely no dignity in that life at all, and you can only live a quality of life allowed by how much the government helps you.
Representative Democracy is allowing demagogues to convince the mob that they’re the best for the job because they apparently know what direction we need to go in. Funny thing is, you can stand in front of a crowd and hide your ignorance in colourful words in speeches and a crowd will actually think you know what you’re talking about.
Direct Democracy is the freedom to be equal. You’re still restricting people by putting that standard of equality on top of everything.
“no, I’m just aware that absolute freedom is no better than chaos”
Freedom means I have no power to tell you how to live your life. I’m not sure what that has to do with chaos.
Freedom means you have the right to pursue whatever makes you happy without coercion or restraint. Name a single downside to that.
“Capitalism is simply the means for people to control capital to make wealth”
No, it is a very specific kind of means for people to control capital. It is one that enables people to concentrate all the capital in the hands of very few people.
With the concentration of capital comes the concentration of power and income. Democracy rejects that on the grounds of equality. A nation’s capital should benefit everyone equally.
“It’s not a governing system, it’s an economic system”
There is no greater governing force in a society than the economic system it operates under.
The lack of freedom girls have in a Taliban ruled society in Afghanistan to get an education because of a government ban is no different than the lack of freedom girls have in an American capitalist society because of lack of income to afford the tuition.
Whether your freedom to do what you want is restricted by the government or by lack of income makes no difference.
“You don’t have to beg because in the society you’re promoting, the government is your livelihood. Absolutely no dignity in that life at all”
What!?! There is dignity in living in poverty not being able to live a decent life because you can’t afford anything but there is no dignity in being able to go to school, get educated, and get a job where you actually do something useful and pays you enough to live in a nice neighborhood in a large, luxury home, impeccably decorated, drive in a new luxury car, eat at 5 star restaurants, vacation several months out of the year also in a 5 star setting, never have to worry about bills, never have to worry about medical bills and never have to worry about losing everything because of unemployment or illness!?!
Somebody is a little too gullible to the rhetoric of the rich.
“you can only live a quality of life allowed by how much the government helps you”
The government doesn’t run the economy. They make laws, set the rules, enforce the rules and regulate business.
Your income depends on whatever the GDP of the economy is.
You have a right to a job and a right to an equal income. So unlike in capitalism, you don’t have to rely on the help of government or charity or anyone else.
“you can stand in front of a crowd and hide your ignorance in colourful words in speeches and a crowd will actually think you know what you’re talking about”
You have apparently been conned by rich people that if you are an average worker, you should remain poor and make 75% less than the average income. You have been conned into thinking that only the elite, top 3% can earn an above average income.
You are being scammed.
And people who reject capitalism see it as a scam. You don’t need to be an expert in anything to understand that there is something wrong with a system that pays 97% of workers a below average income, leaves 45 million in poverty, 15% unemployed, 40 million without healthcare and incomes have been flat for 30 years for everyone except the very wealthy.
You are being suckered.
you clearly missed the part where i pointed out that most western governments practice, and have practised state-capitalism for the past 20 years or so. That’s where the benefit to the few comes from.
I’m not being suckered into anything, i’d like to see education be made free to all citizens, i’d like to see more wealth distribution… but it’s the manner in which that wealth is distributed you suggest i have a problem with.
I want to enable entrepreneurship, i want to enable wide-spread literacy, i want people to have the *chance* to make themselves equal, i want people to have a chance to tap into that trickle down effect that the financially literate and corporate elite have funnelled into their own pockets. I do not want a government than makes the people who do nothing to contribute to society equal to someone who does. The key is more education, more widespread share ownership of large businesses and a more small business friendly environment. not socialism, not free-market capitalism, and certainly not energy accounting of technocracy.
Owning corporations through the market is how we can utilize automation technology in a more sustainable and profitable way for the majority. No it wont eliminate poverty, but it’ll create jobs by enabling those who want to start a business to do so and hire the local population
“most western governments practice, and have practised state-capitalism for the past 20 years or so. That’s where the benefit to the few comes from.”
I don’t know what you mean by this. Are you saying that society without government interference in the market, pure capitalism, will produce a more equal and fair society? It will result in less wealth concentration? That simply is not true, if that is what you are saying.
“I’m not being suckered into anything”
Anyone that advocates capitalism is being suckered. People advocate capitalism because they are told it is the best economic system. The people telling them it is the best is the wealthy few it benefits.
Capitalism is only good for the very small minority of wealthy people at the top. It is a terribly inefficient, unfair, cruel system.
I don’t know how anyone can advocate a system where (should I go through the stats yet again?) 50% of workers waste their lives in pointless jobs that can be automated with existing technology, 97% of workers make below the $127k average income, 50% of workers make 75% less than the $127k average income, 45 million live in poverty, 1 in 5 kids live in poverty, and 15% can’t find a job.
Only a sucker would advocate such an idiotic system where they are getting such a bad deal.
“but it’s the manner in which that wealth is distributed you suggest i have a problem with”
I advocate allocating 100% of all income to workers based on effort. That is the only rational way to allocate income.
If you work 40 hours, you get paid twice the amount of those who work 20 hours. If you work a hard job, you get paid twice the amount of those who work an easy job.
How do you think income should be better allocated?
“I want to enable entrepreneurship”
So do I. But I want the kind where you don’t have to risk your entire life in order to launch a new idea. If you want to gamble your money, you should go to Vegas.
A developed country invests 15% of its GDP. This money should just be allocated to a decentralized network of investment banks who must successfully manage the investment funds they are given.
Company managers would be required to automate as a priority. Automating frees up labor to do new work. This is how you grow an economy. Banks will be responsible for maintaining full employment by constantly launching new businesses to employ these newly unemployed workers. It is a system that keeps the economy dynamic and will work much better than capitalism.
“i want people to have the *chance* to make themselves equal”
What does that mean? A chance? You think after making education free a black kid in a ghetto will have the same chance in life as Donald Trump’s kids?
Turning people’s lives into a lottery is cruel. Everyone’s standard of living should be guaranteed as a right. If you work the same 40 hours as Donald Trump, you should be guaranteed the same wealthy lifestyle.
“i want people to have a chance to tap into that trickle down effect that the financially literate and corporate elite have funnelled into their own pockets”
That sounds like something you heard in a Tony Robbins motivational seminar or get-rich-quick infomercial. There is no such thing as some magic formula that makes everyone wealthy if they just follow the steps.
People need equal pay for equal effort as a right, not a how-to-get-rich book.
“I do not want a government than makes the people who do nothing to contribute to society equal to someone who does”
A society that pays people who do not work the same as people who do work is not an equal society. Clearly a person who did not work would be getting more out of the system than the people who do work. So that is not equal.
In an equal system, if you work 40 hours, you will get paid twice the amount as someone who works 20 hours. And if you work a difficult job, you will get paid some multiple more than what people who work easy jobs do.
“The key is more education, more widespread share ownership of large businesses and a more small business friendly environment. not socialism”
I hate to break the news to you. But there is no more widespread share ownership in business than if everyone owned a part of business. And when everyone owns a share in business, you have socialism.
I know the rich have convinced you socialism is bad. But you are advocating for society to strive towards socialism.
“not free-market capitalism”
Huh? Then what do you advocate?
“Owning corporations through the market is how we can utilize automation technology in a more sustainable and profitable way for the majority”
No it won’t. Capitalism loves the cheap labor it has access to. Why build a machine when you can have the most advanced machine in the entire universe – the human being – for a mere $30k per year?
Ancient Greece had science and technology and civil engineering. But the industrial revolution didn’t start until 2000 years later. Why do you think that is? It is because it didn’t need to build machines when it had access to slaves.
Do you know what the number 1 and 2 jobs we do in the US are? Retail sales and cashier. The 2 most popular jobs we do are jobs that we could have automated decades ago.
If you want automation, you need a system that cares about people’s quality of life. Capitalism is not that system. Democracy is.
In a democratic system where the methods of science are used to deliver the lifestyles people want, automation would be the number 1 priority so we can free 75 million people from pointless jobs immediately.
Democracy?
You have to be kidding?
Only the lazy minded believe in that.
Democracy is mob rule.
Democracy is something that means rule by opinion.
A science system protects people from democracy and is non monetary… because money measures nothing rule. Debt tokens are no longer viable except to wage slaves.
I agree that democracy needs to go, and technocracy is the most attractive sounding government model, but i can’t support the economics on it because:
1). they’re socialistic
2). they’re not well researched and scrutinized
3). it’s contradictory
4). the supporters of Technocracy don’t know what the f*ck they’re talking about when they talk about setting up a government of specialists, then ignore the complete school of economics and try to apply unrelated sciences to their economic ideas. That’s disastrous; and again, it’s just a techo-socialist society in the long haul.
Your clueless.
Read this… its not socialism or capitalism or communism etc.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_70cmz88f&hl=en
I Am The Price System? essay.
Some people here are not absorbing new information.
Adam Smith no longer works.
It was a reformat of Mesopotamian contract society.
A science system would not use money.
“I have existed since the beginning of social life, yet few recognize my fundamental characteristics. Except for some minor civilizations here and there, I am the only type of social system that has ever existed. I was conceived in human toil and scarcity, dedicated to profit and waste. I am the Price System.”
Language common among the rhetoric of the left.
“I am the law of the jungle (eat or be eaten; kill or be killed), projected by mankind into institutional forms. I am the lowest common denominator of the ability, intelligence and necessities of humankind.”
Yes, except in this world we’ve turned it into “you are a have or a have not”. What’s wrong with that? All you need to do is give people the means to be equal, instead of forcing equality.
“I am the oligarchy of Athens who poisoned Socrates.”
Please. Plato and Socrates talk about Technocracy in the government, not in the economy.
“I am the people who are brainwashed with abstract concepts.”
LOL! Irony…
“The way I am organized, it is compulsory for the individual to accumulate as many debt tokens as possible or else become a public charge.”
This whole “Money as debt” mentality is so misguided… it’s sensationalists scapegoating money as the cause of debt. Banks don’t make money, the Central bank makes *all* the money in the country. Period. The bank does not have machines that mint money, it’s all done by the Central Bank. In some countries, yes the central bank is privately operated (like mine, in Canada), but they’re still government owned. Central bank lends money to the private banks, banks distribute that money in loans with a interest rate on top of it to cover the interest rate charged by the central bank. It’s good business for *private banks* to offer savings accounts that grow their clients savings using interest-gain savings account. You let them lend out your money, and they’ll pay you back with interest (simplified). The only way banks make money is if money is *flowing*, trading hands (investing, lending, etc). There is no debt attached to money, and this ridiculous notion that private banks are the ones who actually produce money (as opposed to make profit).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/102342/central-bank
I’m not advocating Adam Smith, but your idea is socialism, no matter how you dress it up.
If it’s not, then who will produce goods if all goods are free?
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Your technate is over-seeing the distribution of continental goods. That’s socialism. Pure and simple. You are forcing equality on an unequal people.
BeyondMachine said: “You are forcing equality on an unequal people”
You are what is wrong with this world.
The belief that people are not equal is the root cause of every problem in this world today and throughout history.
The idea that your standard of living and quality of life should be dictated by race or nationality or heritage or genetics or luck is cruel, inhumane, barbaric and ultimately uncivilized.
If you and I both work hard for 40 hours per week, we both deserve the same pay. And if income was allocated in that way, poverty would end, everyone would be wealthy, wars would end and 100% of all the preventable suffering in this world would end.
Your vision of a society based on class and privilege is evil.
Democracy is equality of power not rule by opinion.
Democracy means equal votes on SUBJECTIVE things and equal income and equal treatment under the law. But only experts have a say on OBJECTIVE questions. In a democracy you don’t vote on how to build a bridge. You vote on things like what color car you want or what style furniture you want in your house.
It means you have equal say in what to produce and what goals to pursue since those decisions are entirely subjective.
You don’t understand economics, you don’t understand political science and you don’t understand technology.
AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION:
You claim labor is no longer needed. So name just one good or serviced that is produced without labor.
All you do is repeat the same nonsensical rants.
My guess is that you are 12 years old and never worked a day in your life because you have the personality of an immature child and have no clue on what happens in the real world.
I’m what’s wrong with the world because i accept that there are people that work harder in life while there are others who are happy simply coasting through? Ok then…
“If you and I both work hard for 40 hours per week, we both deserve the same pay. And if income was allocated in that way, poverty would end, everyone would be wealthy, wars would end and 100% of all the preventable suffering in this world would end.”
If I were a neurosurgeon, and you were… say a dentist. Similar professions, longer schooling required for neurosurgery… Why should I make the same as you when I save lives and devote more of my life to schooling than you? If that were the case, I’d take being a dentist and clean teeth the rest of my life for a neurosurgeons pay-cheque! Woot!
See what’s wrong there? Elimination of poverty is a pipe dream. You had me on your side mostly until you started talking about eliminating poverty. Where did I say I want quality of life to be dictated by race or nationality? Don’t jump to such bold conclusions, it makes you look no better than Johnny.
A society based on class is realistic. Increased social mobility is the key, not elimination of classes. I want standard of living to be based on ability and merit. You know, people who deserve it.
I’m not going to bring my down and say that “you’re what’s wrong with the world”, but naivety certainly does no one any justice
Ok.. your trolling and clowning. Thats obvious. Stop writing now and go somewhere else and phuck with people… maybe a Libertarian website or something is better for you or progressive liberal… they are kind of the same thing and sound like you.
You do NOT get this subject at all…. Socialism is a Price System. Democracy is constructed to implement price systems.
”””””Howard Scott originator of the concepts of the Technocracy technate design…. quote:
”What Technocracy has always contended is that if sufficient energy consuming devices are installed and the total amount of extraneous energy consumed per capita reaches or exceeds 200,000 kilogram calories per capita per day, toil and workers alike will be eliminated, and, when toil is eliminated, the bourgeoisie will likewise go down the drain of history.
Technocracy has always contended that Marxian political philosophy and Marxian economics were never sufficiently radical or revolutionary to handle the problems brought on by the impact of technology in a large size national society of today. It is sufficiently revolutionary to be of some importance and temporary application to under-developed areas of the globe. We have always contended that Marxian communism, so far as this Continent is concerned, is so far to the right that it is bourgeois.
It is well here to bear in mind; the technological progression of the next 30 minutes invalidates all the social wisdom of previous history.
Technology has no ancestors in the social history of man. It creates its own.
I’m hardly libertarian at all, don’t assume you know my political/economic beliefs.
“We have always contended that Marxian communism, so far as this Continent is concerned, is so far to the right that it is bourgeois.”
… worker control of production is… bourgeois? I’m afraid you’re wrong, and gattica will probably agree here, worker control of production and collectivism…. that’s leftist political economics. Technocracy is scientific control of the means of production. So it’s elitist and collectivist.
Allow me to make this correction to my argument after doing some digging on the critiques of technocracy… It seems most professional researchers have not deemed technocracy to be relevant and, therefor, have not done analysis and critique.
So, that’s actually more akin to fascism. Technocracy is like a soft version of fascism. a scientific oligarchy that dictates how much people can consume based on the laws of physics. Economics, commerce and trade are not subject to the laws of physics because they are abstracts, not absolutes. The only science that applies to economics is game theory, because it factors in the human “digit”.
Your economic policy is to bend the economy into the laws of physics and other schools of pseudo-economics.
Gattica, I apologize for putting Technocracy in the same umbrella as Socialism and any other leftist ideologies.
Johnny, nothing you post is compelling. It’s all from Technocracy Inc. Or people associated with Technocracy Inc. You need to offer actual analysis of it’s economics.
Technocracy is Scientific Aristocracy (the word actually means “rule of the best”, look it up. I’m sure scientists fancy themselves “the best”). I advocate Technocracy in the real sense of the word (rule by skill, Techne being the greek word for “skill”).
To get back to the point of this debate, automation of production is necessary to obtain a competitive edge in the *real world*. Will it be good for a nation? probably not. That’s a lot of unemployment sudden putting pressure on a nation’s welfare state. No matter what, someone’s toes are going to get stepped on. The question should be: “How do we minimize negative societal impact in the transition process?”
sorry, irrelevant
Beyond Machine quote
”I think the thing to do would be to make education free to promote more fiscal literacy, then give generous incentives to small business ownership.”
I get the feeling that many people here are only financial con men that want to keep the brainwash system going of debt tokens and have not other interests… like history for instance or understanding current culture.
Everything in a technate is free. The Price System is gotten rid of.
Financial political price system would no longer exist… but your not interest in even paying attention to the arguments here.
Have fun scamming people …ripping people off in your unconscious way.
Maybe you can get some tips on that from big daddy Ray Kurzweil… who does not give a rats ass about society and the future… just his own pathetic tiny ego.
You figured me out. I’m a financial demagogue that wants to see humanity enslaved.
I’m curious, have you ever been educated on matters political and economic? It’s pretty easy to believe in Utopian ideals without learning how things work and how people generally behave as a species. We need to consume, it’s as simple as that. The price system works for us because we then are conscious that our consumption has a price attached to it. You want to make the world a better place? Take that keyboard rage of yours and channel it into developing a system that works with our nature, rather than demand we become ideal and fall into line. An ideal society will always fail because *people are not ideal*.
“Everything is free in a technate.”
So then, why have energy certificates?
I think technocrats are the scammers here… I mean you can’t answer basic questions without being insulting, and then flinging us bullshit and expecting us to buy it. You can’t apply scientific rationality to economics because economics isn’t scientific! It’s a measurement of goods and services flowing in a nation, something that has a very human X factor attached to it, which is something technocrats like to ignore. Hell, i remember in the FB group someone said “social sciences are useless”. That is beyond stupid, how can you go about ruling people and directing their economic lives without understanding them first?
You haven’t won anything. The only thing you’ve managed to do is make yourself sound like a post-secondary freshman who can regurgitate ideas word for word from a text book without ever apply any amount of critical thinking (or your own independent research) to the topic.
Ok… probably your just ignorant. I want say Stupid.
Probably there is nothing organic wrong with you … brainwashing is a curse though.
Your not getting any of the information being given.. thats obvious.
Read this little excerpt from the article on Wikipedia called ”The Price System”
Your still gonna be an ignorant stooge probably after you read it and ‘believe’ your smart and understand something about economics… you do not understand this though http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics
But here is the Frederick Hayek quote anyway… dummy.
”Friedrich A. Hayek on the price system
For more details on this topic, see Price signal.
Austrian School economist Friedrich A. Hayek argued that a free price system allowed economic coordination via the price signals that changing prices sent, which is regarded as one of his most significant and influential contributions to economics.
From “The Use of Knowledge in Society”…’The price system is just one of those formations which man has learned to use (though he is still very far from having learned to make the best use of it) after he had stumbled upon it without understanding it. Through it not only a division of labor but also a coördinated utilization of resources based on an equally divided knowledge has become possible. The people who like to deride any suggestion that this may be so usually distort the argument by insinuating that it asserts that by some miracle just that sort of system has spontaneously grown up which is best suited to modern civilization. It is the other way round: man has been able to develop that division of labor on which our civilization is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible. Had he not done so, he might still have developed some other, altogether different, type of civilization, something like the “state” of the termite ants, or some other altogether unimaginable type’…Friedrich A. Hayek
In other words dummy… your a stooge for an antique system. Singularity people do not get history in general.
Labor is a dead horse.
I have explained why already.
Go hang your head or change into something that resemble something creative… or just be a joker on forums like this and say dumb things forever.
We’ve already agreed that labour is a dead horse. I don’t know why you’re trying to nail that home for me. Although, it does cause massive unemployment because the ratio of unskilled workers (your average factory guy) to skilled labour (your tradesman and such) is more in favour of the unskilled worker. You’re causing a lot of unemployment and a huge strain on the social welfare system.
And I’m going to tell you this, nicely, for the last time: Stop resorting to name calling. You’re undermining your entire argument by stooping to the methods used by an ignorant child.
I do understand history. I know that certain countries in history tried doing the wage distribution (or what your energy accounting idea calls energy distribution,), they failed. Horribly. Because there was no social mobility. It’s that moving up and down the social ladder that drives nations forward, not forced equality. Forced equality is stagnation, anyone who’s studied the social implications of economics can tell you this (see Vertical Mobility)
The thing about the Price System is it works, but as your quote pointed out, we need to master it… Not fear it. It’s something that’s been with us since the first inception of “civilized” culture. It’s so deeply embedded in our collective conscious, that a change would not be beneficial, in fact a lot of people would probably abuse it, and you’ll have to switch back to some kind of price-based system (See USSR under Lenin).
but i guess you’re going to hide behind the convenient explanation that i’m “brainwashed” right?
Perhaps that’s why you’re resorting to name calling every time? Your ideology doesn’t stand up on its own to scrutiny because there are holes in it that you can drive a bus through. Now there’s nothing wrong with that, but thinking your idea is perfect is not what you should be doing. You should be listening to scrutiny and advancing technocracy accordingly, instead of scoffing and hiding behind the “oh you’re just brainwashed” argument.
Gattica… quote
”Comment:
Technocracy and their energy certificate scheme could never work because they do not measure human labor as a cost.”
Wow… your a real loser as to reality man. A total out of the loop type.
Or else you are so brainwashed that its pointless to give you any new information.
Human energy does not play a role of any significance and has not for a long time.
225,000 Kilogram calories of energy is burned daily for the average North American.
In 1900 that amount was around 4 to 5,000… and that amount flat-lined out back for 5 to 7 thousand years in the past.
You want to ride the dead horse of a non viable culture.
Adam Smith is bullshit now… human labor is not significant.
That was moral philosophy from a bygone era.
Your living in the early 20th. century or Sumerian time period of low energy conversion in your ‘mind’.
Your completely out of it.
Your clueless.
Maybe there are many Singularity people that have more a basic understanding of what is going on… but you do not.
Your arguments are over now.
You lost any debate here a long time ago.
“Human energy does not play a role of any significance and has not for a long time.”
I don’t think you know how the economy works and how things get produced. Every single good and service that gets made in this world requires labor.
What do you think the 140 million people who work in the US do all day? Look at machines and pretend to be working?
If everyone stopped working, our GDP would go from $15 trillion to zero.
Name one single good or service out of the millions and millions that get produced that does NOT require labor. Name just one.
Banking and insurance jobs are all fake based on screwing people for money.
You really do not and maybe will not get this idea or the ideas being discussed here.
Read this for starters if you are serious …
https://docs.google.com/View?docID=dfx7rfr2_55dh6wv9&revision=_latest Technate… an Idea for Now… Steven Doll.
Well I’m glad you shared that outpouring of emotion with us, BeyondMachine.
Is this forum unmoderated or something?
@Johnny
I won’t deny that I like the idea of becoming notable (producing things that other people like and are a net positive for society) and wealthy (if you define wealth as the ability to fulfill increasingly diverse non-destructive desires at will). I am not sure that I understand what you mean when you state “That system uses the vertical alignment business method common to business… both capitalism and so called communism. It is a meritocracy also.”.
Do you mean to imply that the technocracy you advocate will be vertically integrated like Apple is (they produce the design of the hardware and software and business model)? I don’t see how this is an answer to my initial question of how to motivate people to innovate most effectively (compared to other systems of motivation). I acknowledge that Apple has created products that people buy and that they are good at mass marketing new product categories (in part because of there vertical integration of design), however, they would be less likely to do this if they didn’t face competition and actively incentivize succesfull innovation.
Apple sucks. Your spamming Apple. The world is not a creative place in the Price System. If it does not make a penny or a dollar it is not done. Most things are shoddy and meant to break after a while.
Planned obsolescence/
Combine that with ‘conspicuous consumption’ and you get the phucked up world of apple and a bunch of retards scammng money… that is the current system.
Technology destroys the current system because labor and digital info and robots cannot be monetized except to destroy the basis of contract society http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i-GfgNTteE … No shortage of scam artists to get the banking insurance and war machine brainwash system … or people that believe in this operating system….
This system was made for a time and place which is now over http://ia600307.us.archive.org/27/items/MoneyHistoryAndEnergyAccounting/Money_History_and_Energy_accounting_Essay_a.pdf
Look up ‘Vertical Alignment business Method’
Maybe stop asking nonsense questions.
Unlike Communism or Capitalism Technocracy design uses anthropological ideas in a science system.
Humans compete.
Always.
Read the Chapter on the Human animal… in the Technocracy Study Course http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged
Mostly just asking inane questions without looking at the material is a waste of your and every ones time karl.
Perhaps “good” or “bad” isn’t the issue. Perhaps it is inevitable and the role of the state from hence forward is to figure out a way to deal with it.
victor
victor-storiguard.blogspot.com
Well, I live in Canada. I remember a time when Canada was one of the top researchers in robotics, but that time seems to have come and gone long ago. Recently, China’s growth has been experiencing a bit of a slow down to to rising wages. Chinese companies are now out-sourcing work to India, Vietnam, and other neighbouring countries because labour is cheaper. I truly think that we need to start making the shift to full automation of production within the next 15-20 years, or else we’re going to be left behind. It’s the only way we can have domestically produced goods in these times. I see below that Johnny is advocating Technocracy, more specifically, the technocratic theory of “energy accounting”. The problem is that’s too utopian, “cyber-communism” if you will. People will never buy that, and it discredits itself. The key in creating a more efficient system is to give people the means to interact with their economy (since the economy is the flow of money in a country)
Ah yes… another ignorant, uninformed comment from the ‘Singularity’ site people.
Energy accounting is used now by industry http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis though monetized.
Not gonna argue your points about communism.. its beyond stupid to compare Technocracy with that or Capitalism.
Also pardon me dumb ass… but the ‘labor theory of value is no longer operating.
About 225,000 kilogram calories were burned for the average North American last year per day… that compares with around 5,000 at the turn of the 20th. century…
So labor exchange only happens again in a collapsed fascist ‘libertarian’ bullshit pipe dream… kind of like your wet dream econo bullshit statement…
But what do you expect from ignorant uninformed people?
In other words…. you.
Watch this and learn something http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM or if you get off being a retarded pawn… thats cool.
Although your totally correct Johnny being a dick isn’t a good way to spread the message or convince people about better forms economy, may that be the technocracy or some other form of it.
I voted your comment up Kristof…
I usually do not post on sites like this and have so little respect for the average participant…. their lack of any historic understanding of much… that I seldom cut anyone any slack.
Keep in mind that we are not looking for converts or trying to play nice… most people involved with us just want to get the word out to the people with the intellectual chops to get started.
Maybe if it happens…. the technate design will be a default survival thing… and our original version of it is lots of science and lots of humanism and intellectual.
Thanks.
I’m sorry Johnney but the ‘average participants’ at singularity hub, though they are by no means perfect, still refrain (for the most part) from replying to any contrary opinion to their own with pointless ad hominem attacks. A bit of humility goes a long way you know.
Personally my ‘historic understanding’ of the situation is thus, that technocracy’s foundation is based on the theory of logical positivism, a bunk theory if ever there was one. If I am to believe the writings coming from Technocracy Inc. it seems that they want to abolish ‘opinion’ based governance in put in its place ‘skill’(science) based governance. While it’s a nice idea and all it seems to have some issues. Importantly, though the theory of technocracy claims to be scientific, its predictions are not currently (if ever) falsifiable and thus, this is where the reducto ad absurdum kicks in, the primacy of technocratic theories is itself an opinion! And it isn’t even a self consistent opinion at that (in that it is of the opinion that it is not an opinion). Phew!
Look Johnny, there is certainly some very interesting ideas coming out of the technocratic movement, but drop the pretense of Objectivity and the thinly veiled elitism. Try engaging in a rational argument instead. I’m quite willing to be proven wrong, I hope you are equally so.
If you get information from Wikipedia you will not find out much.
Here is an historic document that may give you more of a feel for that information http://www.archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-June1951
Just dig some more and keep open minded.
Its not elitist.
Logical positivism?
No that is philosophical muddling http://www.archive.org/details/HowardScott-AnAuthenticAmericanRadical-WilliamSheridan … our founder.
I have a question about using energy as a metric of value for a given “object”.
How would you account for the amount of innovation/information that goes into a given product in terms of the amount of energy it took to produce a one off item?
I understand that for many products (electronics for example) in today’s economy the overall cost is dominated by intellectual property related costs not the value of the energy. Doesn’t determining a things value based on its how much energy it takes to manufacture it ignore the value of the innovations that led to it in the first place? How could you accurately “price” information (and hence innovation) in terms of energy. It seems like there is no known law that relates the importance of a given piece of information/innovation to the raw amount of energy required to produce that information/innovation.
The closest law I can think of is that the value of information is inversely proportional to the likelihood of the information being true. This “law” isn’t amenable to being used to form rigorous valuations of the energy a product used to come into existence. This is because it is at best a statistical law and at worst the liklihood of an event is largely subjective and so the value is subjective.
””””””Doesn’t determining a things value based on its how much energy it takes to manufacture it ignore the value of the innovations that led to it in the first place?]] end quote.
Typical straight thinking that has no creative component.
Machines design most thing.. using information stuck in by humans… what is creative the machine or the human.
What is energy accounting???? Start here and read a little http://www.technocracytechnate.org/
Monetizing information fails now. Labor theories of value fail… energy appliances do the work… energy slaves.
That isn’t an answer to my question. I am not trying to be a dick or make a strawman argument. I am honestly not sure I understand how a technocracy based on energy accounting would work in terms of innovation.
It would seem that you put a higher value in IP rather than physical work? I have done both and you are just as tired when you get home. So for me, man hour is a man hour. Techies and Intellectuals tend to get an inflated ego over time because they learn things that most cannot comprehend. Our information asymmetries along with the price theory support this idea as well. I think its time to redefine what work is, I guess that is why we are here trying to figure it out.
I do think that work that requires you to be mentally engaged is more valuable than work that does not on the whole. Think massage therapy vs being a professional cookie dough maker. A massage therapist must engage with a situation that is more variable than making cookie dough off of a static recipe.
This isn’t to say that I think IP is more valuable than physical work, just that the more focus work needs the more value it has personally and to some extent socially.
Regardless, this question of how to account for innovation in terms of energy balance isn’t NECESSARILY about IP. It is about how to ensure that innovation in an energy accounting economy is is kept at a healthy level.
Innovation is a human characteristic that drives people, challenges us, it’s enjoyable, and gives people a reason to get up each day. A characteristic that people would do regardless if they got paid or not. In a society were all your basic needs were being meet people would naturally gravitate to innovative activaties that suit them best. May it be designing electronic componets, art, sports, family, space travel, video games, being a friend, and on and on.
In the technocracy you wouldn’t own any intellectual property, every idea that betters society would be incorporated into the improvement of society. The individual that innovates the best wouldnt be rewarded monoterially because there wouldn’t be any money, but would be praised and held in high regards for their creativity. It’s a beautiful thought!
Yes.
That is about the size of it.
We no longer need money.
Labor value theories are antique.
Contract society from Mesopotamia is an historic footnote now
http://ia600307.us.archive.org/27/items/MoneyHistoryAndEnergyAccounting/Money_History_and_Energy_accounting_Essay_a.pdf
It’s fine. I’ve noticed the advocates of technocracy always attack people who question them and their economics (Facebook, the euro-technocrat forums, etc.)
I’m watching the video series on youtube that these articles and sources keep pointing to. So far, I haven’t been able to understand where he gets the energy conversion in a human being from, specifically the 1/20 HP stat.
Also, he makes the claims that prior to the 1800s we were all in a “social steady state”. Not true at all. I don’t think he could be any more wrong. Society did *not* remain the same from the time of “civilization” (egypt, let’s say) till even now. The lines he’s drawing would not be as straight and narrow as he says they’d be on his chart because we’ve undergone waves of progress and regression since the birth of Rome, to the rise of the vatican and the dark ages. Renaissance, then Absolutism. Enlightenment, then Reactionary movement. With these comes different technologies, and different energy conversions. I would say that the musket changed energy conversion… it enabled a peasant to be just as deadly as a soldier. Also made the practice of warfare less energy demanding.
In regards to the energy accounting and the failings of the price system, I ask you how are we to consume in this society?
I have used this same argument to win discussions on whether copyright laws are antiquated (society doesn’t need megamillionare artists and people will create regardless of fiduciary recompense). I am not as sure that this argument fully applies to areas of innovation that require substantial risk, time, and pain full often unfulfilling dedication.
People will write songs and paint pictures for free, and a very few people will invent new technologies and do blue sky research for free, the problem is that most people will not do hard research for free. This is why incentivizing is important in our current system.
The energy accounting system may have a mechanism for maintaining societies level of innovation but I haven’t seen an argument for it yet.
I have used this same argument to win discussions on whether copyright laws are antiquated (society doesn’t need megamillionare artists and people will create regardless of fiduciary recompense). I am not as sure that this argument fully applies to areas of innovation that require substantial risk, time, and pain full often unfulfilling dedication.
People will write songs and paint pictures for free, and a very few people will invent new technologies and do blue sky research for free, the problem is that most people will not do hard research for free. This is why incentivizing is important in our current system.
The energy accounting system may have a mechanism for maintaining societies level of innovation but I haven’t seen an argument for it yet.
The answer to your question is automation.
Unpleasant work, work that is undesirable or tedious will be automated and accomplished by machines. I know your next questions, the technology doesn’t exist, and that maybe true at the moment, but soon someone will come along and be motivated enough to innovate and invent a way to eliminate the need to have a human toil at that task any longer. Hard research jobs will become a thing of the past. Point in case, IBMs Watson and it decedents will eliminate 100s of thousands of high paying jobs currently held by well educated people like doctors, lawyers, accountants, scientist, pundits, journalist, insurance agents and on and on. You can argue all you want against the Technocracy, and maybe your right, perhaps it will never occur, but automation is coming which why it is very important to have these discussions now.
We need to get this topic in front of the public and make decisions about our next course of action. Personally I fell the Technocracy has already answered a great deal of the difficult question. Yes its 80 years old and needs some revisions, but the foundation is solid and it gives a great jumping of point to get to where we need to be after toiling becomes a thing of the pass.
“The energy accounting system may have a mechanism for maintaining societies level of innovation but I haven’t seen an argument for it yet”
I would argue that our current Price System degrades innovation. Right now I’m sitting here at work. I would love to be doing something more innovative…. like debating econmics :O
”The energy accounting system may have a mechanism for maintaining societies level of innovation but I haven’t seen an argument for it yet.”
Well maybe you have philosophic differences with your belief system and ideas connected with Technocracy.
That system uses the vertical alignment business method common to business… both capitalism and so called communism.
It is a meritocracy also.
So I am guessing that you just like the Price System better…. but technology destroys this system because labor is no longer monetizable if that is a word.
I suppose many just like the idea of becoming notable and rich.
Controlling other people using debt is hard to get out of a persons system.
Maybe you two will eventually get a BMW and drive away in a cloud of dust and pollution.
Maybe because of the Kurzweil … Ray thing here…. he is an adamant Price System flunky who has written lots of books on how to scam money from people… this site and Singularity people in general are just not that creative in thinking.
Obviously to me if you have looked at that information and still do not get it there is an intellectual gap… and you two are on the short end of the stick.
Guess thats life.
Be seeing you and happy landings…
Have fun making money and destroying the planet for illusory or superfluous reasons of ego and control freak b.s.-
Ciao
Yeah bllllaahh blah blah.
How many people can we kill to make money?
No one cares in this system… you sure don’t.
I hate people like you.
Don’t give a rats ass and will take the penny’s off your dead grandma’s eyes.
Maybe incentive to bomb the piss out of your neighbor country…
http://books.google.com/books?id=LONkb-rab1EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
I agree that the system is definitely flawed and needs a shot in the arm. There was a great piece in the Ny TImes today that I put up on my site about Charles Darwin and economics comparing his theories with today’s wasteful and over bloated mess of an economy. We require a new theory to be constructed perhaps keeping in mind Singularity.
The Singularity is worthless under the Price System. Mostly it just means that the military .. industrial Congressional complex of the world makes people miserable… and you have no consuming rights unless you have a fake job.
http://www.archive.org/details/HowardScott-AnAuthenticAmericanRadical-WilliamSheridan
Dodge my question and attack my intelligence? sounds like someone can’t give an answer without contradicting himself.
You say you’re against money and the price system. If you were, then why would you replace money with “energy certificates”? are you aware that an “energy certificate” would still be money (that is, the medium in the exchange process), just attached to a different standard (energy, as opposed to gold, silver, and market standard)?
It’s also easy to claim your evidence is irrefutable when it comes from the same organization. Perhaps you’d have more credibility if this research that technocracy has claimed to have done was backed by independent experts?
Robots=Labor
If adding tons of free labor hurts the economy, the system is tragically flawed. We mock Soviet bread-lines, but our -ism is just as asinine at times.
Yes… non market economics is the way to go in a science system. Connect with us here for more info http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2205039391#!/group.php?gid=2205039391&v=wall
Communism and Capitalism and Socialism etc. are Price System methods…. and that does not work anymore because of energy conversion.
Automation is good and will accelerate, once computerized systems are completely ubiquitous.
Your point is well taken Harlan Robinson, emotion however is strategically counterproductive. You must always stay calm and objective.
My nation? Hard to say. My nation’s economy? Definitely good.
The most broadly comprehensive view of economics is as the production and distribution of wealth. Some baseline of that goes to the bare minimums required for the health and sanity of the population, and as we increase our production above that we phase gradually from subsistence to entertainment, personal enrichment, and technological developments that increase the quality of life or invest in future production.
Automation is one of the latest exponential leaps in the efficiency with which we do these things. If it’s damaging to the ‘economy’ as we imagine it today, it’s because we may well reach the point where that production and distribution is SO efficient that only some vanishingly small fraction of human/sentient effort is required to provide everything needed. A post-scarcity environment, in other words. It sounds nice, and it might be very nice indeed… provided that the power to provide arbitrary amounts of wealth isn’t restricted to a small, self-reinforcing group.
Right on buddy, the Sith are actively trying to hijack the idea. So we must be mindful and do not react emotionally to the trauma.
They named that planet in the binary system Tatooine. I agree. smiles.
We always seem to be on the wrong side of the track , we need to find the questions for the answers and stop to answer the questions.
Indeed looking at the current social and physical human development , results that scares my pants so tight to prevent any form of fertilization in fear that I may contribute further to a evolution of increasing spineless and silicon engraved creatures that cant stand on their own feet and knowing little more than virtual experiences of fantasy .
A robot programmed to scan and pack my groceries eg. would add awe and wonder to my live , and prevent save some form of sub human life who has no respect for themselves , the goods I purchase that generates their income , my property in their hands or for me either as they degrade my fresh purchases with their lack of morals and value.
The same applies to most services we receive these days.
Who will gain , or rather , who shall be worthy of gain !!!
By his or her works or something like that. Is who will be worthy. Our answers are based on our need for profit. We ask what is profitable then create products and buzz around that idea. Thereby making it possible to frame a questions that we already know the answer to. We are a nation of lawyers and they never ask a questions without already knowing the answer. That’s just plain stupid in front the Jury/Market. Where is the cash’ola in that:)
Robots are energy slaves. They come in handy as in energy slaves being the basis of ‘work’ in industrial society. Most energy slaves, or robots… like your refrigerator if you are lucky enough to have one runs on the energy conversion of oil currently. This creates a problem with Peak Oil being the issue and probably availability of future oil. Article on your energy slaves http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/05/05/EnergySlaves/
I have a question. Does any of these ideas violate our current constitution?
Since the constitution requires that the government provide for the general welfare, it is hard to argue anything that the government does to benefit the population as unconstitutional.
The constitution doesn’t prescribe the country’s economic system so you could even establish a socialist economic system without being unconstitutional (despite what crazy libertarians might say).
The DemandTheGoodLife.com site I mentioned advocates policies that are already in existence (so none of it would be considered unconstitutional). It just wants to expand on them.
We already have a tax funded income (social security, alaska permanent fund), 0% interest loans (FED discount window, innumerable government credit programs) and automation (existing factories, computer technology and the internet can eliminate 70% of all jobs).
”””””’The DemandTheGoodLife.com site I mentioned advocates policies that are already in existence (so none of it would be considered unconstitutional). It just wants to expand on them.
We already have a tax funded income (social security, alaska permanent fund), 0% interest loans (FED discount window, innumerable government credit programs) and automation (existing factories, computer technology and the internet can eliminate 70% of all jobs).””””
Your like a case study advocate of the Price System.
None of the information on energy accounting has gotten through to you.
So be it.
Non market economics is different.
Libertarian wet dreams are a different thing.
Who gives a pjuck about the Fed?
Singularity is worthless with out non market economics and a science system.
Absurd argument… your making aside that is…
You are spamming this entire thread with your ridiculous energy idea. He asked about the constitution. Your comment above is spam.
If you wanna continue trying to defend a system which only counts energy as an expense, do it in response to my comment below.
And instead of just hurling ad hominems like a child, address the arguments directly like:
You don’t see how your energy idea is flawed when it determines the cost of kitchen demolition to be zero? Or the cost of computer programming to be zero? Or the cost of the work of 1000 men to be less than the cost of delivering a truck filled with sand?
Sorry you do understand this subject… the debate your referring to was over a while back. Ignorance does not compensate for education on this so its pointless to deal with lack of understanding on this subject and your fascination with libertarian price system nonsense application of social theory or what ever it is you advocate… like paying people debt tokens from ‘taxes’ har har har.
Be better prepared next time… you lost the debate… ok?
Read some stuff like this http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61689.htm
Or as suggested already this basic … simple explanation of energy accounting https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_93dqt642&hl=en
And learn some things like http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm
and http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis Net Energy Analysis
In the mean time.. good luck, and maybe someday you may shake off the spell your under as a Price System flunky…
”You don’t see how your energy idea is flawed when it determines the cost of kitchen demolition to be zero? Or the cost of computer programming to be zero? ”.
You are way way out of the loop.
Try Googling ‘Price System’ and see what comes up.
Current constitution goes back before the Industrial Revolution. It is an antique document based on Adam Smith Wealth of Nations and the primitive idea now of exchange of labor for purchasing power.
Communism used this same theory of labor and glorified human toil also.
Both Communism and Capitalism are Price Systems and both now antique concepts.
The Constitution has a time and place, which is over now. Its time to move on to the next thing, A science based society.
It seems like there is no valid argument coming from the other side, no surprise there, technocracy information is undeniable and undebatable. People who pretend to have an interest in science, yet be so resistive to the only system based on science, preferring to put all their eggs in a broken price system basket, are on a sure path to destruction. You can stop dreaming now, there is no future for you in the price system.
Automation is a GREAT thing because it liberates us from jobs and enables us to live a more rewarding, more productive life of leisure doing activities more worthy of human effort.
But we are NOT taking full advantage of our automation capabilities because of our wage for labor system. 70% of all existing jobs (like sales, warehousing, transportation, restaurant staff, etc.) can be automated today with existing technology.
If we took FULL advantage of our existing automating capabilities, and made automation a national priority, we could turn the world into a paradise compared to how it is today.
But the only way to do that is to better redistribute income. Taxes should be used to just pay every citizen a $40,000 yearly dividend.
See DemandTheGoodLife.com for one way to make that possible.
Gattica… your missing the point… maybe read this one https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_70cmz88f&hl=en I Am The Price System.
””””””But the only way to do that is to better redistribute income. Taxes should be used to just pay every citizen a $40,000 yearly dividend.”””””””
We are talking apples and oranges here.
Your on a different page.
You are a Price System guy.
This is energy accounting… it is an accounting system of Btu’s or Joules or Kilowatts… to measure resources… it has nothing to do with ‘value’ or being paid… or what you are thinking or talking about… it is not an exchange for labor mechanism.
http://technatedesign-tnat.blogspot.com/
Look at the article on Energy Accounting by Fezer in the links from this site.
Thanks.
My comment above has to do with the topic being debated. I wasn’t commenting on technocracy.
Singularity without a different context is worthless people control using debt.
I see a few big trends in automation. Robotics will squeeze the remaining jobs out of manufacturing. Nothing new there. Over the next decade (2011-2020), I see language processing being the big theme in automation. That will squeeze salaries and freeze hiring for many credentialed professions.
Over the subsequent decade (2020-2030), I think the two big themes are computer vision and computers being able to intelligently construct hypotheses on diverse, qualitative data. At that point, a lot of our sacred cows about society will no longer apply. Our current notions of privacy or “having a prestigious career” will seem antiquated.
Over the long haul, it is good for everyone. In the short term (mid 2010′s-late 2020′s), we will be seeing the sunset of the knowledge economy.
Off the top of my head, some winners and losers.
Short-term losers:
- People with little work ethic/high sense of entitlement/lousy interpersonal skills.
- Brokers of Specialized Knowledge. Universities.
- People who rely on manipulating information flows or “proprietary information.”
- Baby Boomers.
- Hollywood. Wall Street.
- Most retail.
- Most credentialed professions.
- Truck drivers. Pilots.
- Commercial real estate.
Short-term winners:
- The developing world. Overwhelmingly.
- People who think creatively, analytically, and are willing to work and be flexible. Shocker.
- People who save and invest. Shocker.
- Hospitality Industry–which will include virtual experiences.
- Providers of virtual experiences–videos games, enjoyable learning, simulated sex, etc.
- Airlines.
All in all, we will work less. Some of it will be out of choice. Some of it will be coerced underemployment. Goodbye cubicles and 8-6 work days.
Make sure you put a little hope in your comments. I need that in my life:)
http://www.thevenusproject.com
http://vcn.bc.ca/~monad1/welcome.htm
Technocracy wants to replace prices with a measure of energy. But isn’t it true that you haven’t figured out how to do that? Do you have information that explains exactly how you would price something in energy units and that gives examples of what different goods and services would cost in energy units? Thanks.
http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics
“http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml”
That link just tells me how to measure the energy efficiency of a coal plant. It doesn’t tell me how to price a product or service.
“http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics”
That was an interesting article about how energy relates to production at a conceptual level.
But it doesn’t explain how energy units are used instead of our current price system!!
It doesn’t explain how you would price any product or service.
How, for example, would you price designing a website or remodeling a kitchen?
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_93dqt642&hl=en
And explanation of energy accounting… and old and accurate one.
LOL. So this article doesn’t explain how you would price anything in energy units either!
After 80 years of promoting a system that uses energy units, you still haven’t figured out how a system that uses energy units would work?!
Do you have not one article on how your system would actually price goods and services in energy units with some examples?
Sorry, but you seem to have a hard time comprehending Technocracy’s unique design because it is so utterly different from our current Price System. Energy accounting is used to take into consideration the physical flow of energy and materials on the entire continent. An engineer can easily calculate the energy efficiency of any final product, taking into consideration all the steps involved in the process of fabrication, transport times, and recycling cost. A chemist in the laboratory of a petroleum company can tell us with certitude the exact amount of energy with can be extracted at any given time from a certain quantity of petroleum, and this measurement is vital to the functioning of our high energy society; the economist working for that same company will never be able to tell you with certitude the price in dollars of that same quantity in 5 years time, 10 years time etc, that is impossible. The consequence of gearing our continental social-industrial mechanism to the tune of Energy Accounting instead of money profits means that each product would be designed with only its final use in mind. This way, engineers have the freedom to technofacture superior goods which last longer without having to worry about trying to come up with devious marketing and promotional tricks to separate people from their debt-tokens. Production for use instead of production for profit. Producing sustainability is not a question of “redistributing taxes” or whatnot, anything connected to money is but a mere construction in our imagination and values nothing real. The only way out of our current mess calls for reorganizing the whole North American continent along technological lines in accordance with natural law. All consumer products would obviously be affected, the Study Course gives many examples of products. For example, due to the sudden increase in production rendered possible by the new machines, industrialists quickly had to find a way to create a demand for products which they could produce well over people’s need to consume: skilled metallurgists had to be hired in order to design a ‘safety razor’ which would deteriorate after only a couple shaves so the customer would come back and buy more his whole life. The Phoebius Cartel of international lightbulb makers got together in 1924 to agree to set the limit of their lightbulb’s life to 1000 hours. The Price System depends on this. Consider the many thousands of different brands of soap available on the market today, even though there are not that many different chemical compositions for soaps. Samething for every other product on the market. Moreover, the technate design, by controlling the continental mechanism as a whole, would eliminate the need entirely for many goods and services: for example, furniture would no longer exist in the technate, given that the standard living units all incorporate furniture built into the walls. This practical measures ensures a minimum of maintenance in the household, thus means having to produce not only no more furniture but also alot less household cleaning products for example. In this way, using Energy Accounting allows the continent to extract maximum use from a minimum of natural resources. Most products and services would be considered public maintenance, such as education and public transportation, but the individual Energy Acquisition Card would be used to measure the remaining individual consumption, such as food and clothing, and this individual’s choice in consumption would determine the production of those same goods in two years time. Every North American citizen receives an equal limit in terms of consuming power, regardless of what their status is, but such a limit would be very difficult to reach, as there is a natural limit to physical consumption. Please read the Technocracy Study Course where you will find the answers to any of your inquiries, and please, abandon any forms of Price System alternatives because those are impossible to carry on without two basic requirements; production scarcity and continuing growth. This is obviously impossible in our age of technology and extraneous energy where production scarcity has been abrogated but where our dwindling resource base restricts any further growth.
“the technate design, by controlling the continental mechanism as a whole, would eliminate the need entirely for many goods and services: for example, furniture would no longer exist in the technate, given that the standard living units all incorporate furniture built into the walls.”
That is pretty hard core! Why would anyone want to switch to a system where furniture is banned!?! How does that improve upon our current system where people are allowed to have furniture?
Also, I couldn’t find where they give examples of how units will be calculated for products. Maybe you can point me to the link directly and the page of the book?
Does energy accounting mean a computer programmer who hits on his keyboard harder will make his application more expensive since he is exerting more energy? Or do you just give a flat rate of energy units for every human?
I don’t see how energy is an improvement over labor time in a socialist system. How long it takes to make something is the true cost of a good or service. The energy expended in production is not its final cost.
Delivering a heavy load over the course of a day expends as much energy as 1000 human beings. You cannot make the cost of delivering a truck full of sand the same as hiring 1000 workers for the day!
Furniture would not be “banned”, it would just become obsolete. There are no laws in a technate, that is legislating morality (opinionated control of other people), and can never be enforced, natural laws like the laws of physics are the only limitations to what we can do, and we must obey them anyway no matter what system human imagination has devised, therefore better not to ignore them and actively engineer with nature. Only the optimum quality goods and services entailing the lowest cost in resources would be produced, why would anyone want anything less?
Energy accounting is the method by which engineers calculate the total amount of energy required to conduct any process and manufacture any goods (for example engineers know it takes approximately 10 calories of energy to produce every 1 calorie of food currently consumed in the western world). However under the current Price System, all final decisions are made with one question in mind only, profit, whatever the cost in natural resources and human suffering may be.
This video provides a basic understanding of how to determine which product is best to produce: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogat7OIaMkQ
Also this page helps explain elements contained in the Study Course and I hope will answer all your questions and more: http://www.technocracy-think-tank.org/4%20nau%20groups.htm
Absolutely no distinction of purchasing power is made between citizens of the Technate. This allows us to eliminate as many jobs as possible and preclude special interest groups. No extrinsic material rewards can be given for any particular individual, simply because it is impossible to give him what he already has. Only social recognition and prestige will be gained, the rest must be intrinsic motivation. Probably we shouldnt want people who dont have any intrinsic motivations to be granted access to positions of high responsability anyways, so that settles that. Also it will be hard for anyone to actually consume more than he needs due to the physical limitations of his body, so no need to worry about ever wanting more than the maximum the Energy Acquisition Card offers.
That is precisely the whole point: one can of fuel does the equivalent amount of work done by 2 years of manual work. Our whole society depends on this, we have the equivalent of 40 tireless slaves at our disposal at the flick of an electric switch, yet we dont seem to think about that fact very often. What happens when we run out? “Free citizens” in ancient greece only had the leisure time to participate in public affairs as they did because they had actual slaves doing all essential tasks for them. The output of the human engine is only approximately 30 watts, yet a kilowatt hour is far cheaper than a man-hour of labor. Human and animal engines have evolved to be very energy efficient, but they are severely limited in their output when compared to industrial machinery. Also as everyone can see artists and computer programmers can no longer make any money because anyone can download music and very expensive professional computer programs from the internet at no cost despite that being illegal in the Price System. In the technate for example, the number of downloads would only indicate the popularity of an artist’s song, not the amount of money he is losing, and since his way of life would be assured regardless he would be free to popularize the distribution of his work on the internet without fearing monetary loss.
Again, I urge everyone to read this page which helps gain a good understanding:http://www.technocracy-think-tank.org/4%20nau%20groups.htm
@Raul Guillet “Furniture would not be “banned”, it would just become obsolete.”
Why would people stop wanting free-standing furniture just because you price things in energy?
.
“There are no laws in a technate, that is legislating morality (opinionated control of other people), and can never be enforced”
So when I kill my neighbor over a dispute, there is no punishment? Then when my neighbor’s son murders me and my family in retaliation, there is no punishment for that either? So when people resort to an eye-for-an-eye system of justice, that is preferable to having laws against murder?
Doesn’t sound like an improvement.
.
“Only the optimum quality goods and services entailing the lowest cost in resources would be produced, why would anyone want anything less?”
So only the cheapest would be produced? So you think people prefer driving in an $8,000 kia instead of a $120,000 mercedes? lol
.
“Energy accounting is the method by which engineers calculate the total amount of energy required to conduct any process and manufacture any goods”
So when a crew of 7 guys spend all day demolishing my kitchen as part of a remodel, the cost of that would be zero since they didn’t use any power tools!?!
The amount of time in labor hours it takes to produce a good or deliver a service is its true cost, not how much energy was used.
You don’t see how your energy idea is flawed when it determines the cost of kitchen demolition to be zero? Or the cost of computer programming to be zero? Or the cost of the work of 1000 men to be less than the cost of delivering a truck filled with sand?
.
“Absolutely no distinction of purchasing power is made between citizens of the Technate. This allows us to eliminate as many jobs as possible and preclude special interest groups.”
I can buy into the idea that an economic system that pays everyone an equal income and guarantees everyone a job as an improvement. That certainly would eliminate special interests. Since there is never anything personal to gain, you know every decision would always be motivated by the desire to help everyone.
Some people would argue that a doctor should earn more than a garbage man. But people would still be motivated to be a doctor since people would rather spend their days saving people’s lives than cleaning up their garbage.
But that would only be fair if you got paid a full worker’s income while you attended the 8-12 years in school.
.
“Also it will be hard for anyone to actually consume more than he needs due to the physical limitations of his body, so no need to worry about ever wanting more than the maximum the Energy Acquisition Card offers”
There is no way you have proof of that. Unless you are wealthy, most people demand far more than their current income allows. So unless you have the ability of giving everyone the equivalent income of several hundred thousand per year (and you don’t have that ability), people will want more than you can produce.
.
“one can of fuel does the equivalent amount of work done by 2 years of manual work.”
No it doesn’t and that is the flaw in your accounting system. I have never seen a can of fuel poured into any machine that was able to duplicate what a maid does at a hotel or what a tree removal guy does or what a mason does or what a kitchen demo crew does or what a computer programmer does or what a dentist does, or what my plumber does, ad infinitum.
Ok… your being a clown also. What part of using kilowatts, erg or joules do you not understand?
You can not debate ether… your point was lost a long time ago with an answer.
Your just being a redundant nag now by repeating the same thing ””’Author: gattica
Comment:
LOL. So this article doesn’t explain how you would price anything in energy units either!
Sorry Charlie… you lost the debate like your buddy. Internet trolling negative and wrong points might seem like fun to you… or maybe you are just an ignorant person or unlearned… either way the debate is over… your point not taken… and yes it can be measured exactly… we know exactly how much energy was used in the United States last year… exactly… and that is what energy accounting is…
Understand?
No… but so what?
I don’t care because you just wanna be a dick about your point apparently because you have been hit over the head with an answer several times already…
So maybe your just a troll here.
Have a nice day.
Ciao baby.
http://technocracy.drupalgardens.com/
Isn’t the Venus Project about some cartoonist that is trying to sell swamp land in Florida?
I think another guy is promoting him as sort of a Guru type.
Some conspiracy crack pot named Joseph.
Venus Project uses a big computer to direct things.
Mostly it is another ‘non profit’ engaged in making money.
Fresco got his interesting stuff from Technocracy, then tweaked it with a big computer and the theory that there are mostly unlimited resources… so it is ok to have more people and population is not an issue. Pretty silly.
More Technocracy information
http://www.technocracytechnate.org/
Many thinkers about the Singularity, like whats his name, Kurzweil, sorry if I am spelling it wrong, have large financial interests and have written about standard economic ideas and tie them into the future.
They do not seem interested in real alternative information.
Biophysical economics information in a non market non political method.
This concept of thermoeconomics http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics
I find this flaw in Singularity information defeats the purpose of the ‘future being friendly’ in a science system because the Price System values nothing real, just debt tokens. The Singularity crowd does not understand this or does not care to relate to that notion apparently, maybe because they are uninformed about the Technocracy technate design?
This darkens or makes the Singularity concept sort of one dimensional in my opinion. Sort of fake alternative, like many mainstream things.
The Technocracy technate ideas are more interesting.
A continuation of a Price System under the current system .. Singularity or whatever is just a dead letter. It ensures destruction because the choices will be made for profit and not for ecology or human survival.
Singularity is worthless in a Price System. Nothing is gained by it. People are still slaves to ‘contract’ society and barbaric class and caste systems.
http://www.archive.org/details/MoneyHistoryAndEnergyAccounting
Ray K. won a money price of a million dollars or so a while back, it would have been refreshing to acknowledge money being a worthless thing/debt token, maybe even burning it as a joke… to show its thermal value, which is very little B.t.u.’s.
He could have gone to the street to make this point and tossed it up in the air. No doubt he would not have been tagged for littering.
The real deal is the technocratic stuff, by Howard Scott and the Technical Alliance as the other poster has pointed out here. Nice thread of information. Thanks… more on the basic Technocracy concept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ps5vJrIxM – a series of videos on the subject.
The thing that worries me is the massive unemployment. We will definitely need a new monetary paradigm. Efficiencies like these cannot exist under the current form of capitalism. You smart guys need to get working on this pronto.
Yes exactly the three-curve chart which is often used by Technocracy as an analysis of our current situation, showing the relationship between total production, man-hours per unit and total employment, provides a clear understanding. The chart is a composite of all industries, but bear in mind that it can be applied to the lifetime of any individual industry. This chart, in all its simplicity, provides not only a striking visual representation of these trends but also contain the essence for the solution. The plan has existed for almost a century now, thanks to the the scientist founders of Technocracy who formed the Technical Alliance in the winter of 1918-1919. The only solution is to do away with the 7000 year old babylonian Price System altogether and adopt the design for a North American Technate.
The famous three-curve chart can be seen at this link:
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~educator/
Another bit of technology that I think will be just as disruptive to our economy in the coming decades will be 3d printers, replicators, and then nanofactories. These machines may destroy the manufactoring industry as we know it, especially once they are capable of re-creating themselves. Manufactors will no longer create things, they will be making designs and sell the blue prints to the public so you can print the devices ourself. If you thought napsterish websites were disruptive to the music industry, you have seen anything yet. Just wait until you can priate the ipad10 design, print 10 copies of it, and then give them to all your friends for xmas.
Yes every new technology which comes out will only make the Price System more obsolete and its operation more dangerous, and make the prophecies of the founding scientists of the Technical Alliance, which formed in the winter of 1918-1919, more and more relevant and the implementation of Technocracy’s proposal more and more urgent. The price system emerged 7000 years ago in babylonian times. Since the invention of the double-acting steam engine we live in a totally different world. Indeed, as the authors of the Study Course rightfully pointed out, there can only be one science, and they gave the example of photosynthesis, which involves processes concerning biology, but also chemistry and physics. Today we know this fact opens up new avenues and unlimited potential in nanomanufacturing etc. As we now approach the convergence of all specialties of science, we may now decide wether we wish to unlock the tremendous power of the Technate or wether we prefer to prolong the agonies of the dying Price System until its ultimate demise. This is why the shift towards Technocracy has been described as a “paradigm shift of the FIRST order of magnitude”. How else are we ever gonna go up on the Kardashev scale we always hear about? The clock is ticking. There is a plan.
Automation will inevitably destroy the economy, 10 cents a kilowatt hour for machines is much cheaper than the cost of inefficient human labor. Unfortunately we still live in an obsolete price system in which useless human work is needed to maintain the economy. For the first time in history we can produce things in abundance because of technology, unfortunately our obsolete price system only works with scarcity so we under-produce and even destroy goods to maintain their value. We have the technology to produce high quality goods that last for years, but unfortunately the price system thrives off planned obsolescence, so we manufacture shoddy goods that wear out faster, while wasting our natural resources. It is time for people to wake up to the reality of technology and do away with our ancient system of debt that has no credibility in the age of science. The answers to our problems have already been designed by the first team of engineers to conduct an energy survey of the continent, after discovering the shocking truth about our system they engineered the blueprints for a new society under the direction of the most famous geo-scientist of all time. It is called Technocracy, a study course is available for download online please read it.
Dingularity -
Please supply the URL of the recommended study course. I’d like to review it. Thanks.
here is the download link to the Technocracy Study Course Unabridged, written by Marion King Hubbert the scientist behind peak oil.
http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged
Thank you for investigating the Technate design. We think you will find it quite interesting.
I fully agree and very eloquently stated. Technocracy needs to be refreshed since it was first drafted back in the 30s and 40s, but it’s a solid economic model for the future (or at least a good jumping off point).
I like to refer to this problem as the automation saturation, when all tasks can be accomplished by machines. I’m in the investment industry, I follow the markets on a daily bases and think automation will good, very good for the economy, that is until it destroys the classes and leaves everyone dependent on a system of government that will make socialism seem to be to the right. Then we revolt and come up with a new model, like technocracy or zeitgeist, and then it will be good for the public again.
This is not possible because for example fresco himself says he wants circular cities and howard scott wants linear cities. Technocracy means the elimination of opinionated control and we cant have that with artists like fuller or fresco trying impose their views about houses hanging from a post etc, however well intentioned or talented they may be. The Study Course is very specific about architecture and envisions for example prefabricated modular housing with integrated furniture, sound proof, vibration proof, shock proof, waterproof etc, for minimum of maintenance and waste, as well as maximum utilisation of space, interchangeability and mobility. Without naming anyone directly, it pokes fun at fuller’s hanging house design by asking the question: would you house the inhabitants of the continent in such a house? No doubt they were probably acquainted on a friendly basis nevertheless, just like fresco today.
For example fresco talks about epigenetics but only uses this to show that people can be changed by their environment. In the Study Course, the same process is explained but the intention is to demystify our common preconstructed notions about “free will”, the “mind”, etc, wether it be for example by giving the example of personality traits or particular predispositions inherited genetically or on the other hand of the power demonstrated by the environment in shaping our behaviors, there intention being to show how much animals, machines and humans work in the same way and the same scientific rules of thermodynamics for example can be applied to them, as well as showing the wonders of science. I have seen fresco accusing Technocracy of racially motivated prejudice, but this is simply not true, because it says several times in the Study Course for example, as well as original questions answered documents from very early times, as well as very old pictures of african-american members mixed in the Organisation, despite what fresco claims. The whole idea is laughable really to anyone who really comprehends the design, because the whole point is that no matter what the differences between individual humans are, those differences are insignificant in the face of the tremendous power of technology and extraneous energy. The ancient 7000 year old babylonian Price System though, with all its scarcity values, depends on these individual differences and that is what explains the fact that some people tend to try and push this to the extreme and develop supremacist ideologies.
Fresco claims to have briefly met albert einstein and then says “mathematics is just a tool like [..then he lists a whole bunch of 'social science' disciplines which Technocracy consider axiologist mysticism.. just pointing out..]“, but if you see the wikipedia article of Richard C. Tolman, one of the founding scientists of Technocracy, you will see a picture of him actually working alongside einstein himself.
Neither can Technocracy at this point be applied to the whole world because there are simply not enough resources for that to happen. If one wants to solve the problems of other areas they will say solve your problems at home first, this has been stated clearly in the Study Course. The area delineating the North American Technate design is the minimum area necessary. The idea is that once the Technate is established, this occurrence will free up natural resources in other parts of the world on which we currently depend on, and provide an example as well as a motivation for other areas to become more sustainable.
Obviously Energy Accounting is an integral part of the design which fresco intends to replace with some mysterious worldwide ‘systems theory’ of ‘sociocyberengineering’. Theres probably alot of other examples where the plans differ, maybe we can try and discuss some more. The whole point of Technocracy though is that there is only one plan, even though of course it is a skeletal plan, that is also made clear in the Study Course. Otherwise it would mean there would be different opinions about different possible ‘technocratic systems’ (example ‘democratic technocracy’ or whatever), which would defeat the whole purpose, Technocracy being a system liberated from opinions and values (that is necessary in order to preclude special interest and opinionated control). There are no laws in a Technate, those are Price System stuff, legislating morality. How would those opinionated controls ever be enforced? It is impossible. The only decisions the citizens have to make are the ones which directly affect them, that is by deciding, by their consumption alone, as recorded on the Energy Acquisition Card, how much of a certain product is to be produced in two years time. It is that simple. The Technate Administration Chart provides a clear overview of the functional control design in its most skeletal form (note the importance taken by the Special Research Sequence). The Special Calender makes possible a balanced load on the social-industrial mechanism for 24 hour staggered operation. All these guidelines proposed by Technocracy are as essential as ever and are not at all outdated lol. If there was another plan, the Technocrats would probably be the first to know about it.
AUtomation is good for economy
BUT YOU MUST SHARE : IN A GLOBAL INCOME : if you want to live, because you are not the 400 people who have more than 150 million people in usa, and this will continue … and you will die, and your chance to survive are equal to ZERO
Because in fact every jobs could be done with robots, or a software
ANd in fact this is allready HERE : just open your eyes
everything is done with robots in fact
this process of automation : is SYSTEMIC : you know like a cancer
Even your jobs will be automated, you, the stupid skeptic who may read me
I see automation as generally a highly desirable thing. I think that generally the more you automate the more you can potentially produce at lower costs especially in large scale systems. More automation is what can allow humans to live longer healthy life spans, mitigate disease, eliminate world hunger, discover more about our universe or universes. There can be problems with automation though. Complexities in the systems that are automated can be hidden away by simplifying abstractions and easy to use interfaces so that very few people actually know how a given thing works even if they know how to use it. Automation can also go awry so there needs to be check valves placed in the automated system so if there is something that is automated it can modify itself. The automated process should almost always have some way to catch itself. Generally the more automation we have the more power we have at our finger tips which is a great thing as long as the appropriate check valves are put into place.
Automation has been ongoing as long as there has been technology of any kind. Ever since man invented the wheel and suddenly only needed a horse and cart to carry tons of material that required 10 men previously, there have been complaints and fear that the automation of our labor could somehow hinder the long term yields of commerce and industry. Wealth is not measured in labor, it is measured in material. The concept that production increasing efficiency could bring down the economy is simply nearsightedness.
To put it in another way, what we are experiencing is only higher levels of autonomy. We are no longer struggling to put food on our tables, developed nations no longer have to fear starvation. Worldwide we produce enough extra food to feed 5 billion more individuals than already live.
“Automation is changing the economy. Is that a good change…and if so, for who?”
It’s good for the Singularity Hub. Congratulations on your new website!
Thank you Frank!
Ultimately I think automation will enable humanity to live under better conditions. Higher life expectancy, more leisure time, etc. However…it’s going to be a rough ride. For everyone. Cheap labor markets – automation will out compete them. Industrial economies higher up on the food chain? Automation will sneak up on jobs you didn’t think could be automated. Once we successfully navigate that transition, it should be a great new situation. The whole world could have much cheaper goods and services, provided/manufactured, if not designed, locally.