Proposal for a new branch of study

Frequently we hear Zeitgeisters talk about resource-based economies, while simultaneously saying that we shouldn't get too attached to the term, because the world isn't necessarily going to resemble what Jacque Fresco describes.  It is thus that I would like to propose generalizing our aims and create a new branch of study to find out how to actually make this work.

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.

Natural economics is simply the general term for economic systems which operate according to natural law, rather than contrived law.

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.

Interesting that there is no definition of precisely what natural law is.  I have read that it has "several incarnations," and therefore wonder what incarnation You propose.  I will stipulate that the three Laws I offer as foundational to an abundance based social order no doubt have roots in this natural law, if I grasp its basics correctly.

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-en...

Thank You for Your response.

"An observable law relating to natural phenomena."

"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.

"An observable law relating to natural phenomena."

"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?

Australia is all desert. And, do you have links to statistics on this? The best source I found, said we would be spread about 35 people per square kilometer of arid land. But it's difficult to get good sources on this. They never explain their equations.

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.

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.

Acres in Australia:  1,882,431,500 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_acres_is_Austra...

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.

Now, if you're just going to ignore what I say I'm not going to respond at all.

Amaterasu: "Overunity devices"? What's this about? All the links I find are filled with junk. You know very well we can't have levitation on anything without investing tons and tons of energy in creating magnets? A superconductor is but a dream, for now.

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?

"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.

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

SleekMinister, You say "junk."  I propose that is what They WANT You to see merely because overunity is the biggest threat They have to maintaining control over You and Me.

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-releas...

Acumen: Whatever it is, you're not providing any solutions or giving your brothers in the cause any ammunition to take to the front lines. We must have a bargain to persuade people, we can't just unload a bunch of principles and expect them to work it out by themselves.

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?