Time to overhaul the world order

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, I remember what you are talking about. It isn't as relevant as you think it is. The world's GDP per capita is 9000, and almost every single individual in a first world nation is above that number.


Ok, but I don't know where your analogy is coming from.


Well, right, you'll have to have a central system in place for that. If there is no capital market or similar kind of activity, the infrastructure will have to mean economic planning.


Well? Ok, but trends likely won't continue because resources will get scarcer, and because pollution is a bad that rich people hate.


I've said this many times: "INTENSIVE GROWTH". You can grow by exploiting more resources, or by exploiting the same resources better. A lot of what really happens is in part the latter.


Ok? Neither understand each other, and neither make claims RELEVANT to each other.

First hint that you don't know what you are talking about. Economies are social systems first. While there are physical goods, a lot of goods in advanced economies are social goods, or information goods(movies, games, software, etc). A lot of growth is due to innovative ways to use things, or technologies, neither of which really belong to physics at all. So, if you think of an economy as just manufacturing goods... then... well... you have a weak grasp of the real drivers in my opinion.


It is really actually unknown at any given point in time. Machinery is known. Services are not really known. New goods are not really known. Cultural goods are not really known.


Divying it up demands prices though, as it is unlikely everyone wants the exact same bundle, and to exchange between items in production, one requires a rate of exchange.


What if I want something now?


I'm sorry, but the real issue is going to be production limitations. These are going to require bidding for slots. And bidding for slots will end up with subjective value. Your society will likely require overbuilding of factories if all that is needed to produce anything already exists, and that itself is inefficient. So, while you might say "100 silver watches can be created, and there are 100 people, therefore each person has a right to one watch" the issue is that a lot of people won't want the item, and a lot of people will want more of that item. In fact, the most efficient factory lay-out would likely be that there are less watches produced than the maximum demand, but more watches than the probable demand. (that being said, all of this will be an immensely complicated affair, that I don't think that your simple rule really accounts for)


Should products be produced to hold up for decades? For instance, let's just assume the product is a computer. Within 5 years, that computer may actually be somewhat obsolete. Who will want it after 20 years? If there is no need to create it to last that long, then doing so is waste.


If by infrastructure you mean roads, then you aren't saying much. If by infrastructure, you mean the structure of production, then that is a LOT being planned. It also is enough to control what is going to be produced. The influence of consumers on production is mostly relevant when it applies to what factories and other things are going to be built.

AG, haven't you learned by now that it's a waste of time to argue with a Venutian? They're self-brainwashed nuts, and among the most profoundly irrational humans on the Internet.

Sounds interesting, I see you put a lot of thought into this. But I do see a few flaws in it.

The first is waste. Obviously, these products can't just be sold on eBay when they're done with, even if they do last years - so what happens afterwards?

Second, who produces the products and why? What's in it for them? If you use machines to do the whole production process, who builds and maintains them?

Third, who designs and creates the consumer products? Who pushes technology forward? What incentive to they have for doing so? At the moment, companies have a lot of incentive to innovate and come up with new and improved technology which makes life easier, how will you ensure that this progress isn't stunted?

Furthermore, how do you plan to incentivise any workforces? By providing a nice environment?

And lastly, I don't think this system of production will fulfill human wants. As I said before, the reason companies make and are able to sell new models of products so often is because people desire them. If these wants are left unfulfilled, your population will be unhappy and unproductive.

I am not a venutian, and I have stated repeatedly that I don't think the Venus Project is possible today. Maybe in several centuries. But I believe that we should move in that direction.

Products should if possible be made recyclable. If you want to get rid of old thing, just barter or give them away. No one is banning exchange.

There should be one integrated service, divided into many autonomous units which is responsible for producing goods and services. That service would also administrate the geographic territory, the natural resources and the infrastructure. This service is obliged to produce what the consumers allocates their credits to.

Those who design the products are the consumers themselves, though they do it from different modules which are made to fit in together, meaning less waste in terms of for example computer hardware (since all equivalent parts should be inter-connectable). Those who produce the products are also consumers who consume the products which the system is making. Moreover, without the need to keep people employed, automatisation could systematically kick in and reduce labour time and the amount of works where humans are needed.

The incentive is about creating an environment in the labour place where every task feels rewarding to the individual and everything is personal (as local as possible).

To AG: The cultural capital cannot replace the physical capital. If you don't mean we humans should cannibalise on one another in the future.

The biggest problem I see with that is simply that it's impossible. If I told you, for example, that I wanted a phone with a 5 inch screen, 8 megapixel camera, 2GHz processor, and 1GB RAM, with iOS on it, you would not be able to give me such a device because the technology for a 2GHz mobile phone processor does not exist yet and iOS only works on Apple devices.

So I ask, who will keep developing the technology? It's not enough to say customers will, because you still need the guys in white coats to actually make the stuff work, and you still need guys to code all the software too. You can't just do that on demand, it takes time for technology to be developed.

Of course you need them. They will actually be those who in general are in charge of the production facilities. They will also be given a large portion of the infrastructure resources to research and development, being allowed to play how much they like to develop it. Such people are anyway not primarily obsessed over money, but rather into solving problems. The system sets up goals, and their objects should be to reach the goals as soon as possible.

Your phone example was quite silly... ... as if anyone would request a non-functioning item.

We cannot know if the system in itself is impossible before we have experimented with it locally and regionally, within open networks.

And what's stopping these people from moving to another country where they'll get paid for their work? Remember, they are a resource. They need to be bought.



Not really. You told me I could request any item I wanted, so I did.



I think it'll fail. There's a reason capitalism is so popular: it works. Variations of the system you're talking about have been tried and have failed throughout history.

Hypothetically because there would be no other countries.

In a situation where there are...

And why would they need to move when they could get what they could get in other countries for free?

That's your opinion.

OK, so in that hypothetical world, they're trapped and don't know any different, but in the real world, if this was to be implemented, that would be a problem you'd have to face.

It could be a problem during the transition phase with the network, before we could provide for researchers to the full extent. But at that point, the project is voluntary.

Yea...about that....

Unlike other posters, I'm not willing to jump ahead into a hypothetical future and pick apart specifics of the plan as if it could actually be implemented.

It can't be implemented.


The entire scenario is based on the premise that the entire world population would agree to a country-less world with one government and one economic system. Everything in history and in human nature points away from that sort of consensus ever being possible. Even such widely popular systems as democracy and capitalism are not accepted globally and are fought by some with extreme violence. People just don't agree and are not suddenly going to start agreeing just because somebody thinks this is an awfully good system.

Of course that would be impossible to swap to it instantly. Gradually though, we could strive to move into that direction, step by step. If the network is successful enough to expand by buying up companies and land, it wouldn't matter too much what discontents are thinking.

Oh yes it would matter. Some of those discontents have nuclear weapons.

Initially, we wouldn't expand as a kind of nation-state, but as a network of cooperative corporations.