"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.)"
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-en...
It discusses hoarding and other issues.
"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."
- February 5, 2012 20:05
- ·
- Report
- ·
"Now, if you're just going to ignore what I say I'm not going to respond at all."
Patience, Dear, patience. I answered in the order I encountered the replies. You may note I DID respond to You next.
"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."
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.
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.
Information processing. People with compulsive hoarding often have problems such as:
Difficulty categorizing their possessions (for example, deciding what is valuable and what is not)
Difficulty making decisions about what to do with possessions
Trouble remembering where things are (and so they often want to keep everything in sight so they don't forget)
Beliefs about possessions. People with compulsive hoarding often:
Feel a strong sense of emotional attachment toward their possessions (for example, an object might be felt to be very special, or a part of them)
Feel a need to stay in control of their possessions (and so they don't want anyone touching or moving their possessions)
Worry about forgetting things (and use their possessions as visual reminders)
Emotional distress about discarding. People with compulsive hoarding often:
Feel very anxious or upset when they have to make a decision about discarding things
Feel distressed when they see something they want and think they can't feel better until they acquire that object
Control their uncomfortable feelings by avoiding making the decision or putting it off until later
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.
SleekMinister - I think Ryan was trying to present a field of study that would seek to find a solution. Right now even the RBE is mere philosophy. I requires testing in a micro and macro scale to determine details. This doesn't mean that it is not important to speculate on how such a process could be facilitated but ulitimately it comes down to testing resource economics models in the small scale, testing resource statistic computer models and a hell-of-a-lot more.
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
SleekMinister - I think Ryan was trying to present a field of study that would seek to find a solution. Right now even the RBE is mere philosophy. I requires testing in a micro and macro scale to determine details. This doesn't mean that it is not important to speculate on how such a process could be facilitated but ulitimately it comes down to testing resource economics models in the small scale, testing resource statistic computer models and a hell-of-a-lot more.
Thank you Scott, I thought I was going insane for a minute, there.
Amaterasu: I still can't find any live pictures of this "electrogravitics". Two years of Electro didn't help me through the formulas, but in any case I would have expected to see some real life results, whether on Youtube or anywhere else. Please link me to a specific example.
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.
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.
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?
I'll believe it when I see it. The job is doubtlessly enormous.
It's a matter of logic. We are too many and too irrational for a system monitoring our consumption to be accurate in real time. I don't however, doubt in any way, that we can come quite close. Close enough to build up a buffer of safety between our expansion and natures extinction.
This NASA project has some promise to it, if it's not abused by the same factions who have abused so much of their power in the past.
"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."
Oh, SL, here's another interesting vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9WlCpMnlZM
And another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93rsfqwGfOs
"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."
Cool videos, dude. I can only imagine the possibilities. A couple of tens of micro amps for that rotation? Seems almost impossible. I have a strong aversion for perpetuum mobile's, but with technology like this, open sourced and perfected, I suppose we don't need them.
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 more: http://www.myvido1.com/QYykVMPd1ZxQlaCxmUXRTP_lift...
http://www.myvido1.com/QYykVMPd1ZxQlaCxmUXRTP_lift...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUUq2RnnoG8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NePm5RUhP8&fea...
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.
"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."
SM, I missed Your reply... Sorry about that. <grin>
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.
"If You want peace, take the profit out of war."