What I have so far actually encompasses more than just a resource-based economy, based on the data structures I've come up with, there are actually several different economies outside of RBE that function as a natural economy.  For example, we could choose to maximize supply while minimizing demand, which is what I call a fulfillment or abundance-maximizing economy.  The RBE tries to maximize sustainability above all, and economies could be created that maximize any given factor you could think of.

See Bent Valerius's thread for the most up-to-date info.

It will develop - especially if We place the website up and spread awareness of it far and wide.

I don't see why the People who care cannot ensure all these things function.  And water will have LOTS of People care if there is a breakdown.  (But really, if One has one of those purification devices invented by Dean Kamen run on free energy, even the water will not be an issue.)  Broadcasting will easily be stigmergic, abundant, on the web mostly...  No need for "high output energy installations" if One has One's energy source at hand.  I see no issues with stigmergy here.

What do We need a sensus for?  It was designed to allot money.

LOTS of People will care if food supply is interupted.  I thing stigmergy will work here, too.  And robots...

Stigmergy is the ultimate in rewarding the Individuals with Self-satisfaction, appreciation, reputation, status, honor, lauds, etc.  Without a hint of fascism.

What would the planet be defending itself against?  If ET invades, We will stigmergicly defend Ourselves, You bet.

I'm not sure I follow this.  That culture will be just as blessed with abundance.  One of the biggest motives in rallying People in ideology is profit (not prophet).

What war!?!  Over what?  War will vanish from this planet.  This is not a country solution.  It is planetary.  And I assure You, for each problem, through stigmergy, the strongest leaders possible WILL emerge.

In abundance, complacency will overrule except where behavior is so poor it breaks one or more of the three laws.  Then, because We will not willfully harm or kill, We will incarcerate based on all evidence available.  If a "posse" builds and breaks the three Laws, a BIGGER posse will put Them in confinement.

Drugs, guns and S&M are perfectly fine as long as the three Laws are kept.  Nothing inherently wrong with any of the,  Drugs?  Your choice.  Break a Law (with or without them) and You have trouble.  Guns?  Have 'em.  As long as they are not used to break a Law...meh.  Carelessness will strip One of status, reputation.  There will be strong motivation to maintain control and NOT be careless.  S&M?  As long as the parties involved are adults and willing, go for it.  Break a Law...  Why would We fascistly restrict these things?

There will be People whose bliss it is to protect and serve.  They will be the leaders who emerge.  "Civilians" will be a meaningless term.

What do You think a jury of One's peers is?  The whole point of a jury of One's peers was exactly to allow One to be judged by equals.  In abundance, We are ALL EQUAL.  Those who care and are experts - say, in forensics - can offer testamony, stigmergicly.  They will offer Their reputations, examine the evidence, and so on..  And NONE will be motivated by anOther's deep pockets.

And that is why reputation will be so valued.  If You are wrongfully accused, You can go to the web and contact 150 well-reputed experts to examine the evidence and testify for You.  Or 1,500 of Them.  Or 15,000...  Point is, YOU will be well defended if You have a case.  What You are worried about are problems that arise in the justice system solely because some cannot afford proper representation.  Yes, between People who care about justice and who are also experts (We will not lack there), stigmergy will work.

There will be no One "presiding."  Charges will be claimed.  Both sides may call all experts and witnesses.  Those who care, all peers, will hear the evidence and testimony, and decide the case.  But I think it will be very rare indeed when the evidence in any case of the three Laws being broken will be ambiguous.  (What does One need a lawyer for with only three simple Laws???  The question will not be whether the Law is interpreted correctly, but what the evidence shows relative to these Laws.

Most of this will be over the web.  No "crowds" at all.  And over the web, each will independently arrive at judgement, in dispassionate form.

Very few will both care and fail to have objectivity watching a web trial and then voting.  I will say...  There will seldom be cases to try...

Yeah, so?  The question will be:  was one or more of the three Laws broken?  Yes?  Lock Them up in solitary (or just spread the word They are pariah, or whatever).  No?  Let 'em go and leave 'em alone.

I don't think it's a stretch.  People, viewing issues on the web (because They care about things and how they are run), will, in bulk, bring reasonable solutions.  Sure, some percentage will be irrational or personally vested, but that's extremely likely to be a very small percentage.  (I adhere not to "morals" but to Ethics; morals are subjective - in some places it is EXTREMELY immoral for a female to wear nothing but a bikini in public, in others...not so much.)

And since We're discussing rarity of resources, though some things like certain kinds of wood as You suggested will not be available to all, elements can be created at will - with enough energy...which We will have plenty of.  They transmuted lead to gold in the 1970's, but the energy costs were such that if an ounce were made, it would have cost something like a million dollars.  I'm sure We could develop this ability for an ounce at a time or a lot more, of anything We needed.

Oh, I agree that TV is an hypnotic device used to control the masses, but if We have become strong enough to demand electrogravitics from black projects, We will be strong enough to send better messages.  Yes, We will need information to be offered.  The web is helping in that regard.  (And You're right.  I seldom watch the idiot box - choosing the interweb and books, instead.)

We take abundant energy and apply it to common materials to create rare ones as We did in the 1970's or by any process We might develop (or have developed; We may already have such and it is hidden - I don't know for sure but have encountered rumors...).  Most materials are already vastly abundant and We would "create" them by sending robots to collect them for Us...  Or grow them for Us. 

No need to quantify.  The social currency will have whatever value any given Individual places on them.  See My post about why The Venus Project and The Zeigeist Movement don't quite have it right...  I say We don't need a rating system.  It merely complcates things.

I agree that if We decide to keep going as We have been, yeah.  Relevant.  But I will say that I had an uncle, an independent farmer, who LOVED His job.  ADORED it.  It was, indeed, His bliss.  As for transition?  Get the free energy out there.  Initially sell boxes to pluge things into - appliances, electronics, etc.  Free the homes.  Promote free energy cars.  Promote free energy in industry.  As the energy is removed down the line, things will become cheaper and cheaper.  Then robots to do necessary things no One wants to do will be affordable, and things will get cheaper and cheaper.  The jobs lost will be covered by social services until things are so cheap that collecting the penny for the week's groceries will be more effort than it's worth.  And then...  Things will be free.

Do they...?  They what?  Organics?  Higher yield?

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/organicfarming.htm

http://www.coopfoodstore.coop/content/organic-agriculture-has-high-yields-and-benefits-environment

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html

http://www.ofa.org.au/papers/High-Yield-Scientific-Studies.pdf

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Today-f.htm

Rotate crops, with cannabis one year, and phosphates will be no issue.  I recommend looking into a book called The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

http://www.filestube.com/56dee33c7d19347c03ea,g/Michael-Pollan-The-Omnivore-s-Dilemma.html

Without money, war will profit none.  Pretty simple, I think.

I'm out on the web posting, emailing, and hollering it from the (figurative) rooftop.  Have You emailed the link to the petition to Your group of contacts?  Asking Them to do the same?  [smile]  Here it is again:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics

There's no certainty that this society will be strictly stigmergic, is there? After all, the benefits of centralization are quite considerable and limiting negentropy is desirable not only in matters of physics, but undoubtedly also in social structures. The water supply, broadcasting equipment and any high output energy installation are all examples that benefit from central administration. The same goes for universal and generic governmental tasks like doing the census and maintaing the food supply. No need for it to resemble the collectivism that triggered mass murder. It won't if we reward the individual and emphasize that independence from authority is one of the few safeguards against fascism. I can't think of anything, apart from defense installations, that must be under public control (not necessarily all of them), but I believe the advantages, for many prospects, far outweighs the cost of relinquishing societal independence.

The inhabitants of a competing culture won't necessarily care about any credit on their victims part.

Hear, hear!

Agreed, yet I feel confident we need strong leaders in times of war and disaster. They'll probably surface naturally within the stigmergic framework we both envision for politics. On the whole, absolute power is unnecessary and dangerous, but icons that contain the volksgeist to a high degree are equally highly expedient when assuring the morale of the troops and the coherence of the civil society. Great precautions are, of course, very necessary.

Helen of Troy. Sometimes, all you need to round up a possee is thirst for justice.

I think a large number of outcasts is a very real possibility at any time of existence, in any paradigm - at whatever cost. Drugs, guns and S&M won't disappear. We should not underestimate the power of charisma. Let's not completely forget about incest either. One thing that never will come in abundance is beauty.

That will surely be part of it, but I don't think the responsibility of upholding the law should fall on civilians alone.

Here's one thing I love about our present society. The respect for due process (among laypeople). Of course it isn't fair when the richest party has the best lawyers, but I find it equally appalling to put ordinary people in a postition to decide other peoples destinies. Matters of justice should never be acted on without the involvement of someone with proper education. Who decides what is proper is a grand privilege, but I think we'll find stigmergic approaches to that as well.

As long as those residing over the case have some documented insight in matters of justice and all defendants have a right to a fully educated attorney. Group psychology tells us that a lot of primitive forces must be restrained for objectivity and reason to surface in large crowds. For that reason alone, I sternly disagree that absolutely everyone should be allowed to vote. Being radical is not a crime and petty, self obsessed individuals who harbour a lot of existential anxiety, can stir up a a lot of emotions where frustration is dormant.

I generally enjoy your unconventional lyrics, but "reasonableness"? That's stretching it, no? As for the question at hand, I see no big issue with material goods, as moral virtue mos def will hold a prominent position.

You're completely side stepping my appeal here. Seems like you try to avoid recognizing that a great deal of people still think politicians act in their peoples best interests. If you're anything like what I imagine, you stopped watching TV decades ago, but I'm younger than you and I can see clearly the hold that that oblong box has on people. Do you not agree that we need some sales pitch to divert the attention of the zombies? If not, then why? What will make people cast off the chains of mind control?

One more thing. How do we create materials out of energy?

A social currency? As I see it, we can't objectively quantify any emotional transaction and I firmly believe we lose a lot if we try. Don't think you're proposing we put a price on greetings and good deeds, so I suggest we put that to rest and see what people do with this. If dilligently used, my proposed rating system would go a long way towards ensuring some quality and stability in public services.

Yes, but as of today they are highly relevant as farming is so far away from bliss, that you cannot possibly comprehend the hardship these people endure. How do you propose we make the transition? Please don't say free energy. Countless wars have been fought over upholding oil as the dominant energy carrier, numerous alternatives exist and some people think privatization of their water supply will give lower prices. If we can't legalize marijuana, then what chances have we of getting funds to research free energy without a paradigm shift preceding it? Climate change and Peak Oil didn't help energy research one bit. That is, unless you have a concrete application of this technology that's already operating.

They do? Which ones? If you're talking about phosphate, then that's ony for a limited time as the supply is rapidly depleting.

A grand safeguard indeed. Unattainable in most immaterial respects, but a noble goal, nevertheless.

Let's do our part and make it happen!

Why Venus and Zeitgeist Don't Have It Quite Right

I might presume that most of You are aware of the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement.  What Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph fail to grasp, in Each's approach to a "resource based economy" is that the planet We live on is vastly abundant, and the universe offers incalculable amounts of energy.

As all economies of today are based on energy, with money needed to account for the meaningful energy expended, adding abundant energy eliminates the need for an economy as We presently know it.

(For more on the basis of economies in an energy-scarce world, see My blog:   http://worldshift2012.org/profiles/blogs/the-end-of-entropy-a-look-at-our-entropic-world-and-the-evidence  )

Adding overunity in a form drawing on the "dark" energy of the universe allows the elimination of an economy altogether, in any sense We Humans grasp as an economy today.  As resource abundance and energy abundance flow, the economy will become a social one, not resource-based.

Released to follow One's bliss, We all will place value, not on resources, but on reputation.

To illustrate this I will offer an example of a painter - but this could be a scientist, an architect, a programmer, a robotics expert, or any other bliss-driven activity that offers betterment.

In the abundance paradigm, Our artist may order Her brushes, paints and canvases (all created by robots and any whose bliss it is to create these things) from the web, delivered to Her by robots (or, should there be any, One whose bliss it is to deliver things...).

She blissfully paints as Her heart leads Her, spending as much time as She chooses - She has no deadline - in completing Her work.  Once She is satisfied that the painting is done, She photographs it and emails the picture to Her "followers."  She may have a small list or a very large list.  She may post the picture on websites to build Her list of followers (Her reputation).

Those who like and want Her painting will contact Her and then She may ask questions, seeking the highest appreciation of Her work (Her "payment" in the form of appreciation).  Eventually, She decides on the recipient of Her piece, sending it via robot to the One She feels most appreciates Her efforts.

Those who appreciate Her work leave glowing comments at Her site...

The resources are not the base of the economy; the social aspects of reputation, appreciation, name recognition, lauds, Self-satisfaction, and so on are what the "economy" will be based on.  Though resources are needed to facilitate abundance, they are not the basis of economy in abundance.

Well...  Given that no "establishment" exists in a stigmergicly operated abundance paradigm, it would be tough to defraud it.  Any damaging defrauding through "mischief" will only decrease One's status - costing One social "credit."  Nothing to "take control of" to begin with...

Indeed.  Education will be Self-directed, and web-based, with likely a sort of "apprenticeship" with those whose bliss it is to teach.  Teachers would finally get the status and lauds They deserve.  In abundance, They will be "rich."  Appreciation, reputation, lauds, etc.

Groups will stigmergicly form in times of emergency and distress.  I see a fire, I call all My friends, I put a notice on a central site where others can see giving the location - the word "fire" allerts robotic fire fighters, I look around for means to put out the flames.  Others join Me bringing extinguishers, robotic firefighters show up (summoned through the web), a mass of Those who care converge and the flames are abated.  Who needs "authorities?"

"Politics" will be stigmergic.  Those who care will converge to solve problems.  Leaders of the moment will emerge.  No specific People in power.  The only agenda will be to solve any given problem.  The BEST way.

Our "clan identity" will be based on mutual interest.  What would We war over?  Society becomes "superconductive" when Humans don't have to spend time with Those They don't care for.  When They have the option of leaving the scene with no losses.  War is a scarcity fractal, emerging from a system where We fight over basics, where We are incited to war by war profiteers, where some are above others and oppress.  The only "wars" I can see are interpersonal "wars."  "You stole the heart of the One I love!  I will kill You."  But no wars over food, water, clothing, houses, territory, ideology...

Policing will be stigmergic.  I see You trying to kill the lover of the One You love.  I post on the web, call My friends, and those who care will converge.  You lose status, maybe are confined to a luxurious solitary place, no longer free to travel.  You are pariah.  And of course, those who respond and handle the situation become rich in recognition, status, appreciation...

If I don't see You do this...I may try to contact My friend, who is that lover, and discover that lover is missing.  I post on the web.  Others who have noticed that One's disappearance convene and begin investigating.  The evidence is examined and We determine You did it.  You lose status, maybe are confined to a luxurious solitary place, no longer free to travel.  You are pariah.  And of course, those who respond and handle the situation become rich in recognition, status, appreciation...

Courts will be stigmergic.  All "trials" are public, and any who care can "vote" when the evidence is presented, any can suggest a course of action, any final disposition will be the one most choose.  Within the three Laws.  Without profit as motive, You may be able to get Your friends together and vote for You, but the evidence will hold the final sway as far more see that You, beyond reasonable doubt, were the culprit.  Public service will be stigmergic.

Any dispute over materials will be stigmergicly decided.  With no profit motive, with only Betterment as Ethic, the choices made by Those who care, will tend towards fairness, and reasonableness.

Oh, food absolutely will be free.  Clothing, medical supplies, hygiene items, houses, cars and other transportation, computers, appliances, lab equipment, paint brushes, You name it, will be free.  At the start of energy abundance, the prices will drop on all things, but once the costs of energy are removed all down the line, what is left is free...  And robots will do all the necessary work no One wants to do.

Oh, the sciences will burgeon indeed!  The arts, education, parties, travel, all will surge upward.  With total freedom inside the three Laws.  Currency will be social, not monetary.  Money is only needed in energy scarcity.  And social currency will not affect food being distributed by need alone.

All those stats are irrelevant in energy abundance.  Farmers whose bliss it is to farm will farm along side the robots, with appreciation for Human-tended fields as "payment."  The farmers choose to whom They offer Their produce.  The rest are "stuck" with robot-farmed, organic food.

Once We distribute by demand, by need, We will find plenty of food on this planet.  Supermarkets throw out hundreds of thousands of TONS of food a month!  Organics offer better or higher yield than their petro-fertilized brethern - with much higher nutrition.  We pay corporate "farmers" to NOT grow food on vast tracts of farmland - to hike the prices up.  Vertical farming adds hugely to what can be grown on a single acre.

I will quote m'Self...  "If You want peace, take the profit out of war."

All the more reason to make money moot by abundantly adding what it represents:  energy.  And soon!

Amaterasu: On the two first sections I wholeheartedly agree. Little point in defrauding the establishment when you achieve nothing more than burning off calories. Only motive I've got off the top of my head, would be to take control for some mischievous activites.

Politics in abundance?

Well. I imagine a world where virtues are valued beacuse innocence takes time and care to mature. The fear of not making deadlines at work wouldn't be present. Stigma of not contributing manpower would be greatly reduced or eliminated. With means for survival widely accessible, one could travel at leisure, enjoy the simple things and, generally, develop yourself in whatever manner you prefer - at unprecedented speed. I don't believe we'll have a centralized education system either, so personalities will vary greatly - as they should. I don't know if you've noticed, but most mammals play around when they're young. Seems to pass some people by, that.

Even though the main motivators for propagating a political framework of some longevity will be gone (i.e. accumulation and protection of material wealth), authorities still have to organize large groups of people in times of distress. Therefore I think politics mainly would be an enterprise for the rare occasions. Natural disasters, war, systems malfunctioning and deciding on public building projects.

I imagine the business of politics to be easy of access and performed with a solemn and thorough mind set, that won't be subjected to public attention on a regular basis. The ones who are seeking power for personal gain or to coerce crowds to violence on a large scale, I believe, eventually, will be looked upon as religious kooks and sado masochistic SOBs - at the very least, many times more easily than is the case today. They will have no collective survival motive, behind which to hide their agenda.

War of some fashion, on some scale, I hold to be an ever present danger, but who really knows? I hope to be proven wrong. The reasons for war are decidedly reduced in an abundant society, but as the decades and centuries pass, people will forget they ever had it worse. Our desire for clan identity might take precedence over desires for peace and prosperity.

Naturally, there would have to be some forces at play to ensure the stability of the society. As humans like to endulge, as the world has been introduced to the work of Aleister Crowley, as there is indesputable evidence of sexual variation in the gene pool, as the theory of social relativity holds some merit and as our own psyches continuously try to infer an unquenching thirst for recognition on our bodies, we're going to need some peace officers. If you suggest that programming a computer to recognize crime would solve the issue, I would simply respond that you've overlooked som fundamentals in social interaction, seeing as forgiveness and understanding is firmly established as the first cognitive response to your mates mental breakdown. Those who hold the peace should get recognition for their work and citizens should be able to acquire their record in no time at all, perhaps by scanning a bit of their uniform with a PDA. Honour and merit should follow naturally. Sense of locality strengthened and megalomaniacal ambitions adjusted. This arrangement can be used in all interactions with the public. An orphan, an addict, a patient or a student, all would benefit from selecting their guardians by merit. Discrediting a public servant proably won't be all that rare, but if it is not justified, then the amount of positive feedback or the shortness of the record will help to better adjust your judgement. As like/dislike is a fundamentally flawed way to rate something, I think we should adopt a stronger system for rating someone. I propose Heart, Mind, Spirit and Precision. Easily expanded with a scale from 1 through 5 that determines your overall satisfaction. A possibility of personalizing with colour, shape and whatever design you else see fit, should also be part of it.

An arrangement for distributing rare resources, I can't raffine as of now. A guitar maker has a more noble need for rare materials than a carpenter. This matters a great deal in the beginning, especially if this movement is going to be involved in politics for the next ten years. I guess we could just ask everyone and measure that against a record of what resources are available.

Excuse my digression, but I think free food will the first step on that route. As we approach the end of the reign of central bankers, scientists will get more organized, people will get more active in meshes and governments will adapt to peoples desire for more cooperation. The day will fast arrive, when the irrationality of todays economics are only spoken of in a childish and derisive manner befitting the utterly insane principles on which it relies. The sense of loss and confusion suffered at the revelations of our elites betrayal and the dumbfoundedly universal ignorance of our peers, are bound to come alight as the zeitgeist sweeps the world with some long sought, down to earth and logically compelling - truth. Orwell might've given us the recipe for control, but he also provided the most uplifting quote I've ever heard: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." You may sway an audience, you may manipulate a political opponent and you may even falsely carry the banner of truth yourself, but as the Occupiers chant at every showdown with the men and women in blue; You can't evict an idea who's time has come. Like the parasittic force of compartmentalization has taken it's toll on our sense of coherence, so the idea that transparency = integrity will regain it's rightful place, as a key indicator of the darkness in a mans past.

When scientists around the world, finally, are liberated from slaving for profit at some marginalized project that only would hold value in an extremely competetive society (i.e. "planned obsolence" and "GM one generation seeds"), then at last, a magnificent force of mind power comes to be focused on that which is is most important - our health, well being and spiritual stimulation. We can't determine happiness absolutely in a scientific manner, but as the video above me illustrated, we can come close without shaving off our liberties. Exchanging the status of money from means for survival into a more solid currency, we'll accomplish stability and predictability in the economy as well. There should be no financial politics in food and that's that. Quit your sick games and get with the program.

Here's some stats I found. Doesn't look all that bad.

World gross GDP: $63,1trillion.

GDP - Composition by sector

Agriculture: 5,9%
Industry: 31.3%
Services: 62,3%

Approximately 95% of the worlds poor are farmers.

Military expenditure: Roughly 2% or $1,26 trillion.

People living on a dollar a day: 1 billion.

People living on two dollars a day: 2 billion.

1$ of feed for everyone for a year: $2,555 trillion.

Imagine using 2,555 trillion on infrastructure, equipment and education of farmers... How many of that 95% in other sectors would be able to stop work tomorrow?

Do you read the ZeitNews? A fungi can now be mass produced that doubles plants uptake of phosphate. There's been found a fungi in Amazon that eats polyurethane. With cheap energy, all we need to do is bridge the gap between what is and what can be. I believe most of the technicalities are already in place, so the biggest chunk of work is putting it all together.

I feel compelled to quote Vegetius: "If you want peace, prepare for war."

PS

If oil is separated from the US dollar (as Iran intend to do on March 20.), then the Americans will have nothing to back their currency with. Only by controlling the biggest commodity can the dollar scam continue without manipulation being apparent in the numbers. Saddam and Ghaddafi didn't get far, but this time the US is broke and alone. The EU won't pressure for war when facing social unrest at home. Even so, depriving the Greeks of 70% of their oil hasn't stopped anyone from imposing an embargo on Iran. They definitely mean business. The questionable origins of the Syrian rebels, adds to the precarious situation. The big question is whether the Russians will withstand the pressure or not. Putins remarks on Ghaddafi and his popularity at home, seems to indicate that a Middle Eastern war will be very, very big or not take place at all. China, who has the biggest naval force in the world, might not sit idly by while the Hormuz strait, that holds about 40% of the worlds trade, is blocked off by their debtors.

Wow.  Lots of data!  Not sure We need "economics" if We have abundant energy and a social "exchange" as currency.  Being paid in appreciation and all would be very tough to measure, I would think.

Here is a sample spreadsheet I am working on, for US energy supply/demand:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au4lMkGoxUREdGhWSTFTUVNXbUVLTGExNEs0MmtCTmc

Indeed.  And in an energy-abundant world, that is where We will find Ourselves.  Since money is merely the accounting of meaningful energy expended, adding abundantly what it represents will eliminate the need for money - and the power over Others it affords.

And there IS free energy tech, but it is avidly suppressed.  Though I have posted the link to My petition to release the tech I know most about (which includes gravity control as well as overunity (free energy)), I will do so again, and suggest everyOne spread the word:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics

If We can release this non-polluing, negative-entropy (negentropic) tech from the black projects, We can end poverty, hunger, war (which is profit driven) and eliminate the control of the power elite, by eliminating the need for money.

Politics is useless since in a Democracy people don't vote for solutions like an RBE would provide,but reforms that intend to fill gaps within the system that are too many as you run out of fingers and end up changing nothing,or if you do the opposition comes in and changes it all back.One step forward two steps back,great future to look forward to.

Morning, 

just root'n around the topic here and decided this mignt be relevent to this topic.

This cleared a few issues up for me.

Most welcome, Ryan.

As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults may do what They wish - even S&M.  As long as all involved are consenting.  The question was why One might be dishonest in abundance...  Not decadent.  Why lie (except in interpersonal issues, like, "I did not have sex with that woman") when One can gain nothing materially, as all material things are available?

Oh, sure, abundance will not solve interpersonal issues, but as it allows a kind of social "superconductance" - no One is forced to deal with Those They don't like - the incidences of social friction will diminish greatly.  It will not be "perfect," but it will be vastly better than what We have now.

How do You envision politics in abundance?  Yes, in this energy-scarce setup, politics are run by personal gain.  When all One can gain is appreciation, reputation, status, name recognition, lauds, Self satisfaction...how would politics manifest?  In abundance, those who CARE will handle the issues with leaders emerging from those groups who care.

Not a Huxley envisioned.  His was still energy-scarce, with standard politics set up.  In abundance, things will be vastly different in structure than they are now.

If these people CARE, They will be involved in the process.  If They don't, They won't be.  There will be no "workers," "strikers," or "employers."  There will only be groups who care, which will be amorphous - One can join or leave at will - and the best ideas will be supported.

Also, presently, cities are where the grids are...  With no need to stick to grids, We can move anywhere.  Surely, not everyOne will choose to live alone.  In fact, I see communities developing based on common interests.

I am sure those who care will be all over it!

Several things...  First, look around.  Look at the fact that statistically Humans do not exist on this planet.  Look at how much is available.  Second, consider that with enough energy available, We can CREATE matter.  Third, consider that plastics can be made from any oil as a rule - hemp oil makes AWESOME plastics.  Don't worry about materials.  (Also, as One can have what One wants, One is more likely to be a minimalist, taking only what One needs to get by or follow One's bliss...)

That is the key.  Fewer of Them.  Anything to reduce the number of nuts, eh?

As this is in responce to discussing medical things with trusted Individuals, I will say...  It will be up to You to choose who You discuss things with.  What more assurance do You need?  And as for the German who volunteered to be eaten...meh.  If someOne wants to eat Him, and He wants to be eaten - as long as They are both adults and consenting, I don't care.  I will not limit freedom.  But I will guess such occurrances will be few and far between - especially as Our children are raised with those who love Them, pressures of scarcity are removed, the ability to follow One's bliss is available, and Betterment is the Ethic.

And why would anyOne "hack?"  If They told anyOne, They would be pariah.  They would be making things worse, not better.  And They would have plenty of better things to do.  What would be the point?  (And I don't know how You figure an open sourced product can be hacked...)

As well You should not.  But His approach is a bit different from Mine...  For one, He want's to make everyOne live in apartments.  And other differences.

http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/03-elliott.php

Good first step...  Sign My petition - if You haven't already.  For the readers:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics

Why did the french nobels shit in the corners when attending the sun king at his palace? Decadence breaks people down. That's why. What matters when nothing is a challenge and the highest honour you can attain is holding the kings shirt as he treads out of the bath? Sex, is one thing. Heard of the Marquis of Sade? now, there's entertainment for a quiet evening.

Someone could be obessing about you and want to hurt you. Perhaps they were in love with your wife or you're better than them in everything. If you humiliate someone, they're bound to feel like you owe them something.

Lot's of politics are needed. They may not have 50% approval, but as it is, people trust and depend on those scumbags in parliament. So much so, that hundreds of thousands are willing to die at their command. We must spread the information, give hope and encouragement. The message should be that change is possible.

A brave new world in store for us.

Workers, strikers and unemployed might even occupy their previous employer. I know it happened at some abandoned ones in Argentina.

Totally agree! That's why I'm doing this. Most religions are based on fear. It's just completely ignorant and potentially quite dangerous.

The worship of objects probably won't be as dominating as today and so we better brace ourselves to test our mettle in the melting pot. I don't think all will desire to live in isolation or in small settlements out in the country. The population in the cities will definitely decrease, because cities are where you must go when there is no work. It's a place of oppurtunity and we both know humans in groups do stupid things, when there's no kind of arrangements.

Hope so! Flying house? Ok, that's second.

"In abundance" LOL :D I can't wait.

Would be neat if we could invent a material that "dissipated" after a couple of days. That, or one that is edible.

Hope we got enough materials.

Yeah, well, some people are just nuts. They think Feng Shui is the only thing that matters and they are willing to let relationships deteriorate for a new wall paper. Of course, there'll be fewer of them, but hey, women aren't going to stop obsessing about their surroundings.

Let's just cross our fingers then, shall we? Hope for big reduction and quick resolution of conflicts.

I want some assurance of that. Way of the Leaf is good and great when it comes to nice hippies, but some people out there are nasty ass critters who are into schadenfreude as much as you love electrogravitics. Did you know some german volunteered for cannibalism??

Nnothing is secure when it comes to networks. They can come close, but that's it. If the hacker has equally good equipment then it doesn't matter.

Let's at least video tape the response they give to the death and destruction their megalomaniacal cynicism has caused.

I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying the concept as a whole brought with it some interesting baggage I choose not to disregard.

Stigmergistically?

That would be the end goal. I dream of the day.

Let's do it! (I got some more stuff on my list, but I'll return and help with a list of projects that are achievable today.)

Why would someOne be DIShonest in abundance?

I don't know about Ryan, but *I* wouldn't abolish private property.  I suspect that when We all can have what We want in on abundant planet, no One is going to go taking stuff from Others.  What would be the point?  I'll just order a guitar off the web just like Yours...

With abundant energy alone added to the mix, the shortest route will be achieved.  As the cost of energy is removed down the line, very shortly there will be no need for money.  It may take five - maybe ten - years if We focus on building robots for the necessary jobs no One wants to do.  No "politics" needed.  Just three Laws, the Interweb, free energy, a focus on organics, robots as "slaves," a Betterment Ethic, open source programming - and the problems will solve themselves.

We also have seen no energy-abundant societies with robots for the jobs We don't want to do.  This is new territory.

The People who want factories will band togather, drawn by communication on the Interweb, and using robots - putting calls out on the web for programmers and robot builders (plenty of those who love to do those things!) - and the leaders will emerge from that.

Sure, but the better rewards are fame, appreciation, bliss, Self-satisfaction.  Those are much better rewards than money, and especially when there is no need for money.

What would "intrigue" look like when We all have equal power, equal ability to provide for Ourselves, open projects...?  And robots to do the dirty work?  And what would gossip and "slander" matter in such an equal world where any One of Us is free to move wherever We want to, spend time with the One's We like?  You don't like Me?  I'll spend no time with You.

In abundance, You can have Your plane.  There may be safety functions - taking over if You are flying dangerously, for example - but You can surely have Your plane.  Me?  I want a flying house.

And that's how People will "pay" for things - with hugs, with praise, with name recognition - in abundance.

With energy abundance, no One will be in poverty Who does not choose to be.  And They can always choose to live richly whenever They get tired of poverty...

Packaging will actually be limited and recyclable in abundance.  Or reusable.  Or both.

Some will gain status (and maybe hugs too) in abundance for being renown for decorating (and redecorating) skills...  And anyOne can choose redecorating as They please.

I was speaking of kitchenware, not clothes.  In abundance, One can have what "fashions" in clothes (or kitchenware, for that matter) as One wants.  And designers will gain status (and maybe hugs too) in abundance for being renown for designing the perceived best aesthetics.

In abundance, as the weapons makers, the "peons," become capable of following Their bliss, the "masters" will lose anyOne to help Them build weapons.  Sure, They might try to do it on Their own, alone...but why would They?  They can go skiing...or whatever.

In abundance...  You would only have to discuss this matter (or any other issue) with Those You trust - having checked reputation on the web...or having personal acquaintance.  And with no motive but Betterment, likely the solution to that issue will emerge.

With open source, the ability to hack will be eliminated...as those whose bliss it is to check and write programs strive for the BEST.  Hackers (any who try) will become pariah.  That energy will be better spent earning status (and maybe hugs too) for creating better solutions...

In abundance, there are three Laws.  Beyond that One may do as One pleases.  Bankers will no longer exist - no need.  I say We strip Them of money/power (over Others) by adding the highest form of all that, energy, and then forgive Them.  Let Them do as They will - unless They break one of the three Laws.

And that is why We need something fully new.  Energy abundance and robot "slaves."  Three Laws.

And if You don't want to get up and do the bathroom, Your robot can do it for You.  In abundance.

Ryan is right.  Scarcity is a basis for market economics, greed as human nature is a basis for market economics.  In abundance, "greed" has no meaning.  "Markets" do not exist.  Not sure The Matrix will have anything to do with Us anymore.

Or...  We can be rid of "markets" as they exist in an energy-scarce society by applying free energy.  There will only be stigmergistically driven, People-centric projects.  Cures would no longer be hidden (as today they are).

Add free energy and food, power and health will easily emerge.

As long as we're being honest.

By applying logic. I want jet plane. Now.

By according to strict rules of logic. Indeed.

Yes we are. Heaps of addicts and obese and abused and harassed and imprisoned. How would you package that to the world? Private property being abolished I mean? Having a secure confidence that my homestead will remain in my control, is of great importance to me. The same goes for all the possions I've created, acquired and adore. Try take my guitar and see what happens.

I agree to the first statement. That's why we should cooperate and apply ourselves to the goals that are within reach. Those that will yield the greatest results in the shortest amount of time. We are decades behind already and we have lot's of solutions, most of which require only to be politically crafted to convince humans of their potential. I'm talking about taking back control of the economy, about nationalizing what rightfully belongs to the people and reforming our government.

Apparently science is talking over its head. We haven't seen a world where whole societies experience a reality where contribution is not required.

Is that so?

Well, I'm suggesting everything from symbolic to substantive here, so I'm quite open to the possibility. I refuse to be naive about the work needed to build the facilities and machines we are discussing around. Political upheaval can be swift. A lot of people will feel their lives were based on a lie.

That's true.

Should we? Hasn't the reward most often been money?

Point taken, but I'm not sure that lovable old visionary has spent a lot of time in the gettho or in the psychiatric ward. Let's not forget about the black economy, either. Even when/if the garbage of yesteryear is cleaned up, I won't feel rest easy at the thought of humans capacity for intrigue. Remember seeing a world wide study that claimed about 80% of what we speak about is gossip (includes slander). Will see if I can find it.

I agree and then I disagree. They may do exactly what we tell them, but sentient beings have the upper hand when it comes to improvizing in a catastrophe.

Hehe, well now. You don't know my interests. I want a jet plane. It was merely an attempt at a generic temptation. Didn't want to strike to close to home.

No hug can be valued in money. To most people, not a dog either. The same goes for a work of art.

Money on luxuries? Most people are barely getting by, so maintaing sanity often means wasting money on trivial pleasures.

Oh, come on. Lots of things. Snacks, for one. Do you think it all comes out of a hole in the wall? Or that people don't have picnics in the future?

Good for you. My fellow countrymen are the most active redecoraters in the world. A real drag, but I still don't understand how it can be that alien to you.

Should, Solar? Aren't you forgetting womens absurd sense of economy? Hehe, don't mean to sound vulgar, but I just can't imagine women giving up on fashion. We've had jewelry, make up and fancy clothes since forever. What could posssibly happen to change that?

Dude. Wikipedia.

The irony is compelling.

A dreadful prospect. Glad you're seeing things my way.

Medical and psychological files. I'm not so naive I don't think weapons technology will be erased. Hope it does. Don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

Shame? You know, about one in thousand has micro penis. I would have preferred that to be a topic of discussion ONLY between me and my physician (if he could do something about jt).

 You're right. I trust the courts on this one. (EDIT: Misread you here, but yeah. Your argument doesn't invalidate my point that nothing is secure.)

So you want to condition people? Wasn't it you that said laws are meant to contain damage of problems we currently don't have a solution to? Well I have a problem with ruthless bankers destroying the world and I think sending a signal would be appropriate. Some people are beyond salvation. It's sad, but true. Accepting loss is a part of life. I say we get rid of the monsters. After we've determined who caused that damage and if they willfully made it happen. A plead of insanity should be reserved for the insane.

As it is now, human rights are not law. Whatever it is they're wasting their time on in the UN, it's not gaining jurisdiction in my home. That's as it should be. My locality should decide on the laws.

That's a big sourceless claim you got there. Was interesting for a bit, though.

Hehehe. I'm not one of them, you got me there. Well, you may have a point. Hope it's enough.

 A tremendous social experiment that I find eerily fascinating. The Matrix is a great movie, don't you think?

No, no, no, it's only saying that what has gotten peoples attention for centuries is something that's worth taking a closer look at. I'm saying the laws are somewhat magical, but at the same time, all the backdrop, all the drama and all the fiction is... It's just fascinating. A big movie with horrible enemies and brave heroes. Thankfully, I don't have to meet the victims of this incremental holocaust, though.

We could have had a market without any rules whatsoever. Of course there would be big fishes. But also fast fishes. And beautiful ones. And some ingeniously clever ones. Well. What's the point, anyway. I want big state sponsored projects coming along so we can start healing this sick, sick world of ours. Food, power and health. Now!

Goes out of fashion?  My family has used the same dishes and flatware for at least 40 years.  I don't know what you're talking about.

This caught My eye...  "Fashion" is a superimposed value, SM.  It is hyped and promoted to...You guessed it!  Sell things!  Without money/profit as motive, well-made objects that can be passed to the generations will be valued, and not some cheaply made cute "fashiony" thing.

I agree with Ryan.  Kitchenware should only "go out of fashion" when it's broken.

I say "happiness-producing society" to contrast it with scarcity-managing or wealth-accumulating societies.  The one we live in is meant to do those two things.  An RBE would be a happiness-producing natural economy, but there could certainly be natural economies with other goals.

You know, based on what?

How can an operating system manage hundreds of billions of transistors at once?  The approach to a problem is much more significant than the magnitude of the inputs.

Not necessarily.  First of all, we're already in the process of crashing and burning, repeatedly.  Second, doing things halfway doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get a corresponding half-result.  The problems with the current system are very clear, and they are mostly interdependent.  E.G., you can't have equality if you have private property, you can't base your society on science if you have a bureaucracy, etc.

We don't have an unlimited amount of time, here.  We have maybe 4 decades left in the market system before we are utterly fucked, and that's the optimistic scenario.  The most important part of any hypothesis is testing it.

1. Science can tell and has told.

2. We really do not need most of society to "contribute".

2a. There is an imperative in today's society that you must work to live.  This doesn't become "you don't have to work to live" in a post-scarcity society, particularly one based on science.  It becomes "it is unlikely that you will have to work to live", and if there is a survival imperative, people will be lining up to work.

2b. There is an assumption by people conditioned by market economics that those who do not contribute are somehow a "drain" on society.  This is true in a state of scarcity, but not one of abundance.  In a state of scarcity, someone who consumes without producing is actually taking something away from others, because there's not enough to go around.  In a state of abundance, everyone can survive even if someone takes without giving; This is especially true when the abundance is created via automation, because production can be scaled up without coercion.

3. We should all realize by now that reward systems don't reward those with the greatest contributions, they reward those who are most competent at exploiting the reward system.  This is and has always been true, and as long as a reward system exists, it will be exploited.  If you don't believe me, name one reward system that has never been exploited.

I'm simply going to parrot Fresco because it's really the best counterpoint: If we have a society that actually takes care of people instead of subjugating them, people will be lining up in droves to contribute to it.

Reality isn't even foolproof, there's always a small chance of something going completely awry.  But this objection is completely pointless, so what if something goes wrong?  Machines almost always make many fewer mistakes than humans.

A lot less than I would do for an equivalent amount of money.  I'm not interested in that crap.  Your scenario is much more biased, because it's a projection of your interests.  Money is universal, so the subject can project whatever reward they want onto the monetary value.  I don't know that this is statistically true, but in my experience, money won tends to be spent on luxuries, not means for survival, unless the person is very deprived.  If I went downstairs and gave my roommate an extra $50 for dog food and gas, I know he'd spend at least a portion of it on beer and pool.

What about packaging?  There is nothing I can imagine that must be disposable.  What kind of packaging must be disposable?

Goes out of fashion?  My family has used the same dishes and flatware for at least 40 years.  I don't know what you're talking about.

No, no one must fill those databases.  Most data is computer-generated.  Do you know how small the internet would be if databases were all manually populated?  Do you think the admins of this site read your registration and type in your information?  No, it's done automagically, with no bureaucracy of any kind.

Yeah, because when I think quick access and sense-making, I think bureaucrats.

Complete surveillance would imply the lack of a "private sphere".  It's not as if complete surveillance would be forced on anyone.

Except one that has no reason to be attacked.  Why are you assuming that corruption is an inevitability?

How?

Just because a hacker says he did it for the lulz doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for his action.

Which does what?  Punishment is the least effective way to condition a person.  The idea that punishment acts as a deterrent is clear-cut nonsense.  We have human rights now.  We have laws codified that say they cannot be violated, or the public has the right to overthrow you.  Our rights have been violated since the beginning of the nation, and how many times has the government been overthrown?  How many have been punished, out of how many people committed violations?

We don't even need more than 5% of the population to work.  95% of today's industries (by number of employees) are entirely useless.  That's not even considering the redundant work that goes on within useful industries.  Even with the 5% number, we only need about 350,000 people to satisfy all the work needed.

Lots of people love maintaining and repairing things, myself included.  They're called nerds.

As for sanitation, do you think people are going to need incentives for that?  Really?  My roommate's mother gets up at 6am every day to clean the bathroom.  There's nothing forcing her to do it, except that it needs to be done.  Most people cannot live in their own filth.

The taller and more elaborate a building is, the faster it will collapse when its foundation is removed.

Scarcity is a basis for market economics.

Greed as human nature is a basis for market economics.

Inertia as human nature is a basis for market economics.

Competition as a necessity for motivation or creativity is a basis for market economics.

But not one of these things is even remotely true.  It's like saying that you need more evidence that physics is wrong than the falsification of the law of gravity, the laws of motion, relativity, and the laws of thermodynamics, because it's so big and complex.  Yes, it may be complex, but they are all based on a set of axioms which must hold true for everything else to be true.

Because a free market is based on the assumption that there can be perfect competition.  It's not that there's never been anarcho-capitalism, it's that anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly exist, because whoever has the most wealth is the de facto "state".

Point taken. I posted the petition in some Norwegian tech forums.

A happiness-producing society? I feel forced to quote John Stuart Mill. “Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so.” It's impossible to measure. What makes people happy? Accomplishment is one thing - usually. I see nothing wrong with reinforcing that feeling with some blessings. Of course, no system can give you emotional satisfaction, but institutional gifts of a down to earth sort, might speed you along.

Let me be clear. You have the out set that absolutely everything is free and abundant. I don't. I know it won't be for a long time yet and so we must improvize till that day comes. If, indeed, it does. How can we know for sure that resources are plentiful when they must be in accord with the whims, desires and ambitions of seven billion people? As of today, we do not have an answer to that. What would be constructive, is to take a conservative approach and set some ground rules, so that we don't over indulge, crash and burn. That's a scenario I deem likely if we jump the gun and unleash this consumer anarchy on the world, before we have all numbers in place and all i's dotted. More importantly, it won't be a strong political foundation for squashing the senseless inequality of todays world. For that, we must have solid solutions to the problem of manpower. As I've pointed out, many jobs will be very boring with the technology of today.

What's most important now, is assuring that all humans are fed and sheltered, that we eradicate diseases we have cures for and that we give people the means to expand their activity. It's possible doing nothing more than collecting support. Once that is accomplished, we have the task of making our society operate even though people have no obvious incentive to contribute. Survival is out of the picture and that hasn't been done before. Is love of life enough? Who can tell? Some encouragement is not out of the question, is it?

We can't be sure that enough people are going to support the system. They've slaved for centuries and now there's no need. Those that contribute are providing a basis for a new level of civilization. That's differential contribution. Equally appalling? Such "dangerous" notions as honour and dignity can be unpredictable when concentrated in charismatic leaders, who have moral support of hundreds of thousands of people. We could just shoot them when they revolt (assuming enough of the moral people have the most guns), or we could bargain in advance of all that - buy their simple minds love with symbols of achievement. Could be something like getting triple quota on housing, being first in line for new technology or getting a decent vehicle. Something that equates effort with benefits. Devoting your life to a boring job is a sacrifice. Divine aspirations deserve divine gratification. As I've implied, a system can't provide that, but it can provide the means. A public appearance, some applause and a laurel. I mean, what's the big deal?

And science tells us no robot can foolproof it either.

It's not disproven that incentives are inefficient, it's just that most of those experiments are done with money (read mean for survival [as it is today...]). Ask yourself, and be honest, what would you do for a week in a penthouse flat, with PS3, an all you can eat-buffet and three classy ladies waiting on you and your friends every beck and call? You can't buy love, but you can facilitate. I think ignoring the lessons of religion would be making a grievous mistake. Ceremony and ritual isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not saying that the government should be the only ones to take advantage of our primitive dispositions, far from it. I would encourage all to create ceremony and sustain their lives and ambitions with the power of  groups and symbols.

 Yeah, ok. We'll eradicate rape. Let's just do it. I mean, why not? What's stopping us?

What about packaging? And you know, kitchenware goes out of fashion fast.

Until we have enough energy to vacuum mines, I don't think we can check that off just yet. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Yes and no. Someone must fill those databases. A lot we can do ourselves, individually, but making sense of it all isn't always a job for a professional. Adjustments of a few parameters could make the entire out lay obsolete and some of that work must be done manually. Quick access to complex scientific principles, could also be facilitated by bureaucrats. They are after all, in essence, merely links between laypersons and professionals. As complete surveillance would mean a big intrusion in the private sphere, much information should be stored in paper. No database is safe from attacks and a leak of medical or psychological information could destroy a life. I find that unacceptable and will promote all reasonable measures to make sure it doesn't happen. After all, when kids can hack the Pentagon, I don't trust the department of health.

1. Then the violators get punished, assuming that right has been incorporated into law, as it should. Of course, we can't go overboard on this, but let's say knowingly executing actions that are likely to deprive someone of food for extended periods of time, will get you sentenced to several years in prison. That would mean the board of directors at IMF had to go away for a while. This is a matter for jurists, but I'm certainly not content with national law on some matters of imperative importance. That much I know.

2. If that is their choice, so be it. I will oppose all who force their dogmas on other people.

3. Well, that's an entirely different discussion. And a long one, I might add. I will not speculate on what motivations people have for giving up their freedoms when it should be a matter of personal choice.

I think a lot of people would choose to not take part in the work that wonderful society requires to be realized and, supposedly, sustain itself (once the basics are in place). A little encouragement wouldn't be out of place, if manpower is in short supply.

Not always do our creative desires coincide with the needs of the community. Too bad, but someone has to pay the bills. Maintenance, sanitation and repair aren't exactly happy-go-lucky kinds of activities. Yeah, I know robots could go a long way on this one, but we're going to need some help in the beginning, ok? Let's not argue on need of manpower, in fifty years from now, till we get our hands on some solid prospects.

Everything. The concept contains too much to be discarded without forethought. It's like saying magic is bull shit and "waste no more time on it" - only rational if you interpret it in one sense. It's got a lot of baggage you would miss out on if you deprive yourself of the contures.

Nothing. It has everything to do with the near monopoly currently enjoyed by behaviourialists.

By the way, did you know that we've never had a free market?

Exempli gratia

No, I'm saying that incentives do not work, and imply differential advantage, which a happiness-producing natural economy would have to avoid.

Yes, and stuff like that happens all the time with the incentive system, because it doesn't work.

Murder and rape are simply effects of one or more common causes.  Identify and prevent these causes from happening and you've eradicated rape and murder.

Which should be no objects.  All objects should last as long as possible, unless you can somehow justify the lifespan with a reduction in overall cost.  What do you need a toothpick for?  Ever used floss?  Even today's floss is wasteful.  It would be pretty trivial to make floss reusable.

Mining is already largely mechanized.  OtOH, we could probably recycle enough of this society's shit to last a century.

Uhh, you mean like databases?

1. Human rights are meaningless.  So something's a human right, so what?  If it's violated, then what?

2. People are willingly giving up their privacy for the advantages they get for doing so.

3. Humans have become increasingly networked since civilization began.  If we last long enough, we will likely reach a state where there is nothing to distinguish one individual from another, thus privacy would simply not exist.  But long before that, people will continue to relinquish their privacy in exchange for tools whose benefit far outweigh any possible detriment caused by something as trivial as shame or fear.

And why not?  The majority of people are not exceptional and do not do exceptional work.  You really think people are so petty and egoistic that they would rather have a shit life in a shit society over a great life in a great society, just because the shit society feeds them cookies and rubs their backs whenever they do something good?

In a transition, this is particularly important, but as we go along, who knows what the end results will be? Perhaps evryone forgets the gun was ever invented.

By doing some sort of work, you are already being rewarded through the result of that work.  If you care about being comfortable, you'll make a new thing that makes you more comfortable, and your reward is therefore comfort.  What is the obsession over the prize at the bottom of the box?

Okay, and that has what to do with the extensive experimental and empirical evidence which disproves the axioms of market economics?

"How" is...spreading awareness.  [smile]  I hope the signers of the petition are pointing Others to it.

Ah, the bitter irony. What stands between us and prosperity is merely politics. Fun stuff, you say? Would sure love to see that.

Are you saying work won't be necessary? I find that a bit naive. If there's one thing we've learnt from science, it is that nothing is 100%. One bad weld could be enough to cut off a city's water supply. Say it happens at the point on the pipe lines that is furthest away. That could have ramifications way beyond missing one service bot for a couple of days. If Murphy's law strikes at full force, then that bot doesn't cope with the temperature change in the desert. Perhaps a herd of buffalos stampede the poor thing to bits. What if the satellites sent to track it have been hit by meteors? Fail safes are great, but only for that we anticipate, and in the end - all things decay. In addition, the methodical investigation by a robot can't match human expertise. Not for a long time yet.

I accept that all actions stem from instrinsic motivation, though the coherence may be stretched wide and concealed well. I also acknowledge that not all people have desires, that does not conflict with mine. Like murder and rape. I don't think humanity is all so innocent as that. Most of us are, but yeah. Are we going to relinquish the duty of upholding the peace to robots? I think not.

Organic toothpicks? It's useful because it's decays fast and harmless. Good for objects intended to have short life spans.

Yeah. In a century or whatever. Show me the work.

Of course. We will always need people to organize in schools, research facilities, governments et c et c. Just because there's abundance of most things doesn't mean that applies to all things, or that it will last indefinitely. Someone has to keep an overview and as far as I know, robots don't know how to keep a record. Yet.

Exactly. Why do you say it is inevitable? Privacy should be considered a human right, in my opinion.

You are not reading me fairly. I said contributions should range from symbolic to substantial. I don't say that anyone should be deprived of a good, healthy and meaningful life, but if there is no differentiation, other than social, between those who maintain the foundation of society and those that don't, well, then you're not going to recruit as many people, are you? In a transition, this is particularly important, but as we go along, who knows what the end results will be? Perhaps evryone forgets the gun was ever invented.

I never said creative work. Mammon and spirit don't get along, I know. What about rewarding beauty with solace? Ingenuity with respect? Hard work with comfort?

Disregarding something as big as "market economics", I will not do without heaps of convincing persuasion.

The diganosis frenzy of behavioural psychologists, I really don't care for at all. Sigmund Fraud is detrimental, not Carl Young.

"Fairness" is a foundational stone for "pure" communism - not the pseudocommunism of the systems We have seen on this planet, where there is the "outer party" that get to "share" the scarce energy, and the "inner party" gets to live richly.

So, for that reason, I see You presenting a scarcity paradigm of "pure" communism.  

No.  Where are you getting this idea?

In reviewing Your responses to SM, it is clear that, except for energy (and housing), You and I are on the same page essentially.  With robots to do all the necessary work We don't want to do, We are freed to pursue Our bliss, and many feel bliss contributing positively to the planet.

I still contend that there is no need to box people up, and that there IS free energy in negentropic form available, but I see Your vision other than that working quite well.  Except Your's is still tied to scarcity in that it is a form of communism, which is one "pie" split evenly.  Abundance is more like a giant warehouse of "pies" from which Each may take as little or as much as Each wants.

So I see people having big houses, because They want them; little houses, because They want them; teepees, because They want them; caves, because They want them - and everything in between.  I see People becoming doctors because They want to heal; scientists, because They want to research; technicians, because They want to work on machines and such; artists, because They want to paint or sculpt or whatever; actors, directors, teachers, mathematicians, philosophers, mountain climbers, fisherpersons, travelers, historians, archaeologists, etc. etc. etc. because that's what They want to do.

And some may even choose to be couch potatoes (though unlikely - most such People these days just can't afford to do what They want to do).  But that's ok.  They are no drain on an abundant system.

Once there is enough energy for anything We want to do, We can create such freedom.  Education to all levels will be available to everyOne and not just for the rich or Those willing to go severely into debt.  Between robotics and free energy, We will be truly free.

Ah, I'm just being dramatic to make you chill out. ( ﾟ∀ﾟ)ｱﾊﾊ八八ﾉヽﾉヽﾉヽﾉ ＼ / ＼/ ＼

Disregarding the monetary cost of production, energy needs could be met and exceeded by renewables in a few years.  We already have a food abundance.  The amount of grain fed to cows could feed 8 trillion people.  That, alone.  Construction is trivial to automate, it's a wonder it hasn't been done yet, considering what a dangerous, essential job it is.  Fun stuff is happening at universities, though.

I don't understand why you're asking this if you already acknowledge that people do things out of intrinsic motivation.  There is no incentive for work because it isn't necessary and doesn't really work anyway.

How will distribution be made fair?

What role does wood uniquely fulfill that makes foresting necessary?

What about mining or forestry require vision?  There are lots of ways of identifying materials that are better than vision.

Both can be mechanized with proper standards

There's going to be a bureaucracy in a post-scarcity economy?

Why?  Because someone "evil" might watch people?  It's going to happen eventually, there's just too many advantages to it.

How is that "fair"?  What if someone is unable to contribute?

There are no conditions allowed for something to be fair.  Everything is made available to everyone.  That is fair distribution.  Favoring one group over another is literally the antithesis of fairness.  Unequal distribution is only "fair" to the market-minded.

No, they shouldn't.  That is one of the most basic principles of a resource-based economic model.  The science shows that not only is reward unnecessary for people to do creative work, it may actually be detrimental to one's ability and motivation to do creative work.

It is for this reason alone that we may disregard market economics as pseudoscience, as "incentives" are taken completely for granted, even after behavioral psychologists have proven the incentive hypothesis to be thoroughly wrong.

LFTR will not provide gravity control - nor is it negentropic - like electrogravitics.  Yes, the power that is output in EG far exceeds the input with the correct setup.  And it creates cold as a signature, not warmth.  Warmth is entropic; cold is negentropic.

But any free energy - energy the Individual can rely on for free - is optimal.  Any energy the Individual has to pay for negates the money-dissipation option.

My book was not to rival Dune [grin]; it is to illustrate the abundance paradigm in action.  Take Your time.

http://www.myvido1.com/QYykVMPd1ZxQlaCxmUXRTP_lifter-electrogravitic-b-2-flying-wing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUUq2RnnoG8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NePm5RUhP8&feature=related

These last two are interesting because the electrified elements are encased in resin to eliminate the ion wind.  This shows that the claims of "merely ion wind" are incorrect.

I remind you again that LFTRs could simplify matters even more. I must admit, I'm a bit behind on what we can achieve with extremely cheap and extremely eco-friendly energy, but I intend to find out. The biggest challenge to realizing the RBE, I think is materials. Energy won't help us much there I suppose.

In conclusion I say, let energy become a matter of politics, one at the forefront of the struggle, up there with economics, education and justice, as assuredly, we are so clearly lagging decades behind on implementation and research.

I don't have time to read your novella now, but I took a peak and it looked interesting. Still, I don't think it's going to beat Dune!

And another:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93rsfqwGfOs

Come on, I'm trying to meet you halfway here. You may not like me, but why should that stop you from weighting my arguments? Cross partisan politics is required to realize this dream. We simply can not be stuck on our own petty desires and fears, when fashioning an economy for all humanity. Why don't we just draw the line and declare truce? I promise I won't badger anyone, regardless of my personal opinion, but I withold the right to argue for my viewpoint. What do you say? Argumentum ad hominem abolished?

I believe, eliminating the need for money, at least, would require a high degree of abundance. Presumably,  energy is out of the equation. Food seems within reach. Reasonable shelter is not impossible. If these three are supplied for all humanity, then workload will be significantly reduced. What a paradigm shift that would be. What a Utopia, indeed...

Primary and secondary sectors will be largely automated, with the exception of design and supervision of production. They include: resource harvesting and production of goods and houses as well as engineering. What remains? Tertiary (services) - maintenance, health care, media, entertainment, restaurants, hair dressers and so on. Transport and distribution is also in this sector, but those will largely be automated as well. Religion and banking also falls in this category, but let's put those on hold for now. Quaternary (intellectual services) - education, culture, research and government.

Quinary - "Some consider there to be a branch of the quaternary sector called the quinary sector, which includes the highest levels of decision making in a society or economy. This sector would include the top executives or officials in such fields as government, science, universities, nonprofit, healthcare, culture, and the media." - about.com

Ok let's get an overview. Most conventional jobs are superfluous. Most people will not be forced in any way to contribute to the maintenance of the system. Big sectors of the economy will still need human employment, but educators have more time to teach and employers will have more qualified people to choose from, as they are more skilled and have more intrinsic motivations for choosing their profession. I don't believe we weill ever see a completely leaderless society, but probably employers of some form will be part of it. All that, implying that there is no need to waste time and energy, scrambling about for food, warmth and shelter.

I see at least two major obstacles ahead.

How will work be incentivized?

How will distribution be made fair?

To attempt to answer the first one: An automated system is of course dependant upon people servicing it and the scale of what we are talking about, calls for a large number of people. Much of the harvesting is, probably, too specific to be done without remote control. Mining and forestry for instance. Teaching robots how to see is, as far as I know, far from a mature science, as of yet. Health care, cooking and reporting are activities we must do ourselves, but that doesn't worry me much. Plenty of us love doing that sort of work. We already have mastered the art of mass production of tasty snacks, so why not use the same techniques on (semi-)healthy food stuffs? Automated surgery is also a possibility, freeing up loads of time and effort. That leaves... the leavings.

Sanitation, maintenance and bureaucracy are the most boring jobs I don't see watertight solutions for. We could hose an eating area, I suppose, but there's still the matter of land fills of inorganic materials. Maintenance is drone work, but are we really that confident in our machines to leave them with the responsibility of security? Complete surveillance is a touchy thing and poses a very dangerous threat if placed in the wrong hands. In the intermediary phase, at the very least, processing the wants and dislikes, cataloguing what there is and finally, deciding who get's what, will demand a tremendous effort.

As for how to make the distribution fair I think it would be helpful to take a look at the familiar needs pyramid

It seems reasonable to make luxuries unavailable to the large masses without some form of contribution. It need not be exhausting in any way, but can range from symbolic to substantive. After all, if only a tiny fraction of the population is doing any work then it probably won't work.

In this society, contributions should be rewarded. Any ideas for what that might mean?

Yes, in today's society.  You can't just project our culture into a society that's completely different.  If some people in the future use money to trade rare objects, then whatever.  It's not important, because it won't be the basis of the economy.  Do what you want, and quit whining that it's not important enough.

Fine, then I won't conceal mine.  Quit projecting your own culture into an antithetical society.  You are being the idiot right now.

Yes, I go to ZeroHedge every couple days for my religious studies course.

You tell me to be wary of absolutes, and you call something a "utopian ideal", you douchebag?

Why are you arguing about something that's not under contention?

There's got to be something between the covers on something that I thought of a few days ago?

I give up.

Did you have a chance to check out that LFTR?

Money. What is money? It's a unit of  exchange. "Take some of this and I get some of that. You can trade this in the city over there, for just about anything you want. Trust me." Now, why won't we ever have a society without money? Because we have traded since the dawn of time. Not just food and clothing. Jewelry, make up, tools and weapons (toys). If you have something that's rare - and this is the imperative here - something rare - people will want to trade with you. Still not convinced? It's fun! "I made a bargain!" "Look at my collection!" "Let's redecorate!"

Acumen: Listen, I'm not out to get you or anything. I guess I'm not concealing my frustration very well. I'm a bit pissed at the fact that no good answers on the RBE have come from the Zeitgeist movement yet. We need alternatives to what's going down today and Zeitgeist could've been that alternative, but I'm not seeing it happen. Ethics isn't even involved, you know? How can we expect everyone to share without giving the idiots something to play with?

By the way, are you studying economics? If you are, I'm sorry on your behalf... With bankers in control for so long, that subject has been so politicized as to fragment into nothingness. It's like a school of mechanics, where all the students only learn about one part of the engine each. I've been digging deep and the revelations have been... unpleasant, to say the least.

I agree that hoarding isn't particularly natural. I see it as a byproduct of a society that measures status in money. Add to that, the fact that poor people don't throw things away as easily and you see that eliminating, at the very least, a substantial part of hoarding, will be quite possible indeed - if we do something about peoples perception of status and poverty. Liberals try to act like status doesn't enter into account and conservatives like to pretend that the poor are living on another planet. The reverse is the unperverse and we need to turn some heads to get people to realize that neither of these, really, are big issues. I mean, we've waited long enough, so some shit has been accumulating, but we've still been moving in the right direction for some time now. Let's just say that the need for cooperation won't come as a surprise to anyone, like it or not. I do NOT agree that an RBE would only be actual for our children. If we continue much longer, doing what we have, then a rage of tsunami proportions will wash over this world. Occupy and Zeitgeist is the beginning of the end of Fractional Reserve Banking, in my "humble" opinion...

Complete overview over natural resources is not a utopian ideal? Be wary of absolutes. Let's see. We can't scan the ground for minerals. We don't have the capacity for scanning all of Earths forests. We can't keep a real time account of consumption as humans are placing the orders. We could keep approximate records that would ensure stability and sustainability within some measure of reason. Of course that is an honourable goal. I hold no resentment whatsoever to the people propagating this reality with their hard work. But let's be real about it, ok? For this to even begin, we need to have academics and engineers, across nations, cooperating.

Donald: Yeah, I see what he's proposing and I would love to study earth economics. Truly I would. At the end of the day, though, there's got to be something between the covers. Some kind of curriculum. Essence. Progress.

Ryan - Enlighten me. Please. It's why I'm here. Let's not waste time squabbling like chickens and hens.

Thank you Scott, I thought I was going insane for a minute, there.

What is it you think my goals are?

Why, because you can't imagine how it could be done?

It stems from the fact that you do not get very far by ignoring reality.

Hoarding isn't inborn, it doesn't come from nowhere.

What makes you think we can't solve the problem?

And again, we are not the ones that really matter.  The generation that grows up in the natural economy will be the real test.

Patience, Dear, patience.  I answered in the order I encountered the replies.  You may note I DID respond to You next.

SleekMinister, it looks like You're confusing electrogravitics, which involves a high voltage run across a high K, non-linear dielectric with asymmetrical electrodes, creating a gravity field that surrounds the whole, with electromagnets, which are an entirely different critter.  Electrogravitics is a highly classified science/technology; electromagnets are not.

If You would like more information, check out what is available here:  http://qualight.com/library.htm

"As for money - don't you get it? Hoarders have control today. Lot's of people absolutely Love hoarding and so, the abundance must and will be rationed. We can't expect people to not abuse a free-for-all no-give-take-whatever system. At some level there must be control. You know, there is 1.2 BILLION catholics today. Are you sure we aren't going to need some precautions?"

As for money...  If We can flood the world with free energy, removing the cost of energy all down the line, what is left is free.  Though I offer this elsewhere:

"One can grasp this most easily by considering the first hunter, fisherperson, gatherer, farmer, miner. The stuff They gained/used was free: critters, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seed, sun, soil, rain, ores. It was the meaningful energy expended that gave "value" to the stuff: the killing, fishing, picking, tilling, weeding, harvesting, mining, transporting.

Add abundantly what money represents - energy - and the need for money (and the control of others it affords) in all its forms (barter, trade, work exchange, coin, bills, electronic funds...) will dissipate and what is left is free.

Add robots to do all the necessary jobs no One wants to do to free energy, and Humans will be freed to follow Their bliss."

So...  I recommend reading My post here called The End of Entropy:  http://tzmnetwork.com/forum/thread/4/the-end-of-entropy/

It discusses hoarding and other issues.

You say you want the economy to be more in tune with natural law. Ok, so we don't use more than we have. We recycle as much as possible. We try to contain the waste that's harmful. Hopefully we nourish the nature we have left. Hopefully we gain understanding of the climate and do whatever it takes to balance things out - we may be in for a cold future, as far as I can tell.

Did I forget anything? Is that all the term covers? Or are we going to include fair tariffs? Making sure farmers with machetes aren't competing with oligarch food factories sounds pretty damn natural to me.

What about currencies? The value of a currency will NEVER be in accordance with nature. We could close the gap, but complete overview over resources is a utopian ideal.

The most important thing, I believe, is making the current economy economical. Today, it's all a game. Artificial as can be. Isn't that where your desire for organic economics stem from?

Amaterasu: Poor choice of words, but the question remains valid. It's costly to produce magnets and they are scarce in nature. (I know LFTRs may be a unique and excellent substitution for all energy production, but since I'm no physicist I'm bound to acclaim.)

As for money - don't you get it? Hoarders have control today. Lot's of people absolutely Love hoarding and so, the abundance must and will be rationed. We can't expect people to not abuse a free-for-all no-give-take-whatever system. At some level there must be control. You know, there is 1.2 BILLION catholics today. Are you sure we aren't going to need some precautions?

As I point out in My Electrogravitics thread I KNOW We have the capability to create independent gravity fields with very little energy input, and use these to produce overunity.

As for money, no.  We only need it in an an energy-scarce society.  All it does is account for meaningful energy expended.  Add abundantly what money represents and money is no longer needed.  THAT is why the power elite hide, disparage and suppress any overunity technology.

Through My petition, I am offering a path to "get there from here."  I linked My piece, The End of Entropy, above,  The petition direct link is here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics

How much simpler could I make it?  There is nowhere to "get".  It's a field of study, not a state of being.

"It's not the land or the volume of the people (????????), it's the resources required to maintain all those individual houses.  Each requires its own inputs of food, water, transportation, electricity, and probably TV and internet.  Each of those houses must be maintained.  The houses must be built in a way that provides perceived equality to avoid the emergence of crime.  There are so many things wrong with each person having their own individual thing, in almost all cases, that I've become bored of naming all the disadvantages."

With overunity, energy for all these things is available.  The planet can provide these basics for all of Us several hundred times over (except food...wich it can provide 10 times over - not counting the new vertical farming and other innovations).  All will have "equality," and so houses do NOT have to be built in any specific fashion.  Each may have what suits Them.  You seem to want to push everyOne into a mold.  EveryOne must be and do and exist in such-and-such a way.

Do You think this promotes freedom?

"You are not going to grow up in one of these cities, for one thing.  If you really want to live away from everyone else, you go right ahead, maybe you'll be fortunate and someone will help you, but me, I just see that as selfish.  Elbow room?  Your elbows take up more room than an apartment?"

Where is One going to grow up then? How is it "selfish" if there is more than enough room on this planet to provide for every Human to live alone on an acre somewhere?  Add the gravity control of electrogravitics and We each could have 40 cubic acres and not have neighbors for many, many miles...  (And what would I need help with?  I'll bring My overunity device, My interweb wireless connection, My refrigerator, freezer, heater, stove, oven, and My gardening robot in My sunroom garden.  You are thinking in an energy scarcity paradigm.

"Do you really need a house that's big all the time so you can have a party a few times?  Isn't that a little ridiculous?  Can't you just have the party in a building that's made to have parties in?  Again, there is a line to be drawn between necessity and selfishness."

What if I was more comfortable in private quarters with My friends, not wanting everyOne else to know I am throwing a party?  What if I want five bedrooms for overnight guests, a livingroom, a garden room, a big kitchen ('cause I love to cook)?  There's plenty on this planet to provide all that for each and every One of Us.  Show Me why it is selfish.

"People are free to choose lots things in the current socioeconomic system that do not get done.  The human brain is different from other brains in the animal kingdom, but not by much.  Certainly not by enough to escape the fact that animals are simply biological machines that emerge as products of their environment.  Likewise, our attitudes and behavior is programmed by the environment, meaning it's important that we understand how we as a species respond to the environment so that we may understand natural law and progress as a society."

Of course it doesn't get done.  There is no PROFIT in it.  Or it COSTS TOO MUCH.  Or it's SUPPRESSED.

And I hold that Humans are leaps and bounds different from animals.  But hey, You can see that any way You wish.

As for money - we will always need it, for there will always be a desire to trade objects of unequal value.

A big problem with the money we have today is that it's worth ten times more to the banks than it is to us. Another is that a lot of nations have given the power to contract and expand the money supply to private institutions, which is just absurd. I could go on, but let's stay positive for now.

Acumen: Even though you started this discussion, you haven't brought much more than ideals to the table. Just saying. How do we get there? What should we focus on?

Population: call it 7,000,000,000

Divide the acres by the population and One gets .27.

This is only an illustrative look at how much earth there is on this planet for each of Us to live on.  Add the gravity control of electrogravitics and We now have hundres of trillions or more of cubic acres for Us to live in.

Add overunity devices ("Free energy") and the need for money dissipates to nil, add robots to do all the necessary work no One wants to do (or not enough People), and We are freed to follow Our bliss.  We all become equal in Our ability to choose to live richly, and will gain "riches" in the form of reputation.  This is why I am calling for signatures on a petition to release the science/technology of electrgravitics so that We can eliminate the need for money, which only accounts for meaningful energy expended in an energy-scarce society.

You gotta be kidding me.

What if the government fully subsidizes housing?  What about renting?  What about building it oneself?  What about squatting?  There are lots of ways to do it.  There is no specific answer because it doesn't matter.

It's not the land or the volume of the people (????????), it's the resources required to maintain all those individual houses.  Each requires its own inputs of food, water, transportation, electricity, and probably TV and internet.  Each of those houses must be maintained.  The houses must be built in a way that provides perceived equality to avoid the emergence of crime.  There are so many things wrong with each person having their own individual thing, in almost all cases, that I've become bored of naming all the disadvantages.

You are not going to grow up in one of these cities, for one thing.  If you really want to live away from everyone else, you go right ahead, maybe you'll be fortunate and someone will help you, but me, I just see that as selfish.  Elbow room?  Your elbows take up more room than an apartment?

Do you really need a house that's big all the time so you can have a party a few times?  Isn't that a little ridiculous?  Can't you just have the party in a building that's made to have parties in?  Again, there is a line to be drawn between necessity and selfishness.

People are free to choose lots things in the current socioeconomic system that do not get done.  The human brain is different from other brains in the animal kingdom, but not by much.  Certainly not by enough to escape the fact that animals are simply biological machines that emerge as products of their environment.  Likewise, our attitudes and behavior is programmed by the environment, meaning it's important that we understand how we as a species respond to the environment so that we may understand natural law and progress as a society.

Anyway.

We have mechanization. We have cheap energy. We can achieve great technical feats when cooperating.

The big issue isn't how are we designing this society. That should be entirely up to the people living at any given location.

The obstacle in front of us is making people realize how much further we can get by cooperating than competing. They have the means, but lack the confidence and belief. I think we do that by showing people what takes a lot of skill and thus should be honoured. Money is a completely absurd measure of status, but in the current state of affairs it is made valid, because it signifies how far you made it. In this ladder game where everything is laid out for you, endurance equals money. If you're a tough sob, you are surely also, relatively, wealthy. Reversing this pathetic view of honour, respect and accomplishment is absolutely imperative and I think we would need to do little less to start seeing things change around here. We start by showing the world the absurdity of pushing our children through the regime that is public school. 10 years of our childhood went down the Sado Masochism drain hole. For nothing. It's a crime against humanity, in my book. But yeah, "I shouldn't feel bad, because children in Africa are dying." Well, the same people who were missioning for schools in the 1800s are in the same business as the ones collecting interest from the "Third World". Cynical, megalomaniacal usurpers who deserve nothing more than a taste of their own bitter medicine - looking at a wall for ten years. Where is the Olympic spirit in the number game? At the stock market? Yeah, right.

"a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

Ok.  So what IS the observable law relating to natural phenomena?  What IS the principle deduced? What are the particular facts?  What IS the statement You are using?  What conditions?  All You have provided here is a definition of the terms.  I am seeking specifics in the system You propose.

Sure there is an answer as to how One obtains a house in classical economics:  One either inherits it or earns enough money to purchase it.

You say, "The current model of each person having their own separate house never was going to work."  Why?  Why could One not have One's own house?  Given that if every Human on the planet was given 1/4 acre of land in Australia (4% of landmass EXcluding Antarctica), from new-born to barely hanging on, there would still be a chunk of Australia left over - plus the rest of the planet...  Given that the volume of Humanity, if placed in the Grand Canyon, wouldn't fill one side canyon...  Given that statistically speaking Humanity does not exist on this planet...  What is the issue with owning One's own home?

Sure, if One LIKES living in a hive of boxes with Others, One should be able to do just that, but why constrain those Humans who would rather have some "elbow room?"  Me?  I HATE apartment living.  I would not be happy so confined.

I agree that many may see a bed and bath as all They need for a home base - but it would make it difficult to invite a bunch of friends over for a party, to express Oneself in interior design, to feel unrestricted in One's home, to maintain privacy (if that is important to One).  Better My system, which allows One CHOICE.

In My system the structure is in seed form, allowing Humanity free expression of the chaotic/fractal growth from that seed.  It gives Humanity total freedom of choice within the three Laws.  One is not forced into hive living (We are not bees), nor to spend Human energy on anything One does not value.  But One is free to CHOOSE living in a hive, if that is what One wants.  One is free to CHOOSE expending One's Human energy on anything One values.

When I say "well-defined," I don't mean mathematics.  I mean in terms of precisely what the society rules and function are.  Mine relies on One's bliss.  For example...  Some have asked Me how robots will be repaired.  I explain that I know MANY whose bliss it is to fix mechanical items.  MANY who love to work on robots.  MANY who love to program robots.  I offer Linux as a prime example of how things can be done stigmergistically.  All anyOne gets in the Linux arena is appreciation, lauds, name recognition, and Self-satisfaction.  Yet bliss - to solve problems, create something better, to feel helpful - runs it beautifully.  No money.  No forcing.  No requirements.  No lack of CHOICE.

So I do have a model of how things would get done using bliss as motivation.

What motivates People in the RBE?

"a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

There is no specific answer for how someone would obtain a house in a natural economic system, just as there is no specific answer for how someone would obtain a house in classical economics.  In a resource-based system, there would simply be a constant abundance of housing, maintained by population tracking and statistical models, where one could tell a computer they want to move somewhere, and the computer would tell them which houses are available to live in.  The person would then choose that house, travel there, and live there.  No big rituals or anything.  The current model of each person having their own separate house never was going to work.  Apartment or town-style housing is more efficient and better for social well-being.  After all, what do people put in their house?  Things they want easy access to.  Why do people get really big houses?  Besides for the status, it's so they have space to put all the stuff they want access to.  So, the more things that people have easy access to, the smaller the home gets, perhaps for some, until it's nothing more than a room with a bed.

I don't see a well-defined structure in your idea, maybe you don't understand that I mean "well-defined" in the mathematical sense.  An RBE currently has no mathematical models, as far as I'm aware.

The questions I have about "resource-based" economy have to do with the fact that resources themselves are, in terms of survival needs, vastly abundant on this planet.  We could feed, clothe and house at least 10 times Our present population, with food being the delimiting factor.   How do You see the average Jo(e) exchanging for what Hume ("Hume" is a genderless pronoun for a Human) needs?  Hume is born, grows up, and needs a house.  How does Hume obtain one?

In My proposed abundance, Hume could go to the web and order such a house, built by robots (and/or any whose bliss it is to build houses) directed by Those whose bliss it is to design houses, perhaps checking the status of house designers to see who has the best reputations.  Or consign to one of these house designers if no houses are immediately available.  Or design Hume's own and have robots build it.  If electrogravitics is available, the houses could fly in the air...

With "being on the grid" no longer a delimiting factor with overunity of some kind available, where a house might be built, presuming an earth-based house is desired, is pretty much wide open.

I am unsure whether You have read the whole of My piece, The End of Entropy, but it provides a positive seed for a chaos-driven governance.  (Randomness and chaos are different things - randomness is just that, random; chaos has an infolded, or underlying, structure which emerges in time.)   Society fractalizes out of a small set of seed parameters.  And with energy scarcity as one parameter, We see greed, conspiracy, hoarding, power over Others, poverty, hunger, and so forth.  Add energy abundance and "greed" becomes meaningless, there is little to conspire for, "hoarding" becomes pointless, there is no power over Others in any economic sense, and poverty and hunger vanish.

It sounds as if what I propose is better defined that the "natural laws" and the "resource-based economy.  And it frees Humanity to follow bliss as opposed to having to add Human energy by perforce working.  Any "coin" is in the form of social status, reputation, name recognition, fame, gratitude, and Self-satisfaction.

The whole of the system meets both service to self AND service to Others simultaneously.  For if it can be implemented, I would surely be served, and so would all of Humanity.  I invite You to read (if You have not yet done so) the whole of The End of Entropy.  http://tzmnetwork.com/forum/thread/4/the-end-of-entropy/

Thank You for Your response.

Since this requires a knowledge of natural law, it would require generalists that can integrate knowledge of every relevant study on structuring society.  It would also work much better with the input of experts from every field, thus making it a unifying structure for all the sciences. 

Because the idea of a resource-based economy is new and unprecedented, it needs to have a well-defined structure before we can seriously implement it; the sooner this gets done, the sooner we can make it happen.  However, we should not assume that a RBE is the be-all, end-all, nor should we assume that an RBE will work.  Thus, it is highly appropriate to generalize it to a larger field, identifying what makes it different from contemporary economics.  What makes it different, but not necessarily unique, is its basis on the known natural law of the universe.  All things aside, the basis on natural law is the one thing that is completely essential to all the rest.  The idea of creating abundance, and equality, is simply based on observations of natural law.  The idea of distributing resources according to direct measurement is, potentially, a viable idea based on natural law, but not necessarily.  As scientists we have to accept the possibility of being wrong, so we should therefore be prepared for that reality.

I'm confused about how the economy is seen to work in this  "Natural economics" or "Naturally-bound economics."  Would You be able to describe how it is seen to function?  I would appreciate it.

I think "Natural economics" or "Naturally-bound economics" is a good name, as it reflects what is really the most important characteristic of a resource-based economy, its basis on natural law rather than made-up rules.  It would be a metastudy, aggregating the knowledge of lots of different areas of study to create efficient socioeconomic mechanisms.

This could serve several purposes:

1. To give a new direction for market economists
2. To have a unifying structure for science and engineering
3. To have a study that may be introduced to schools as a way to spread TZM.