Technocracy Questions

[t_wolves_fan]

Here's a fun one: Genetically Modified Food.

The pros: (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml)

-Crops
Enhanced taste and quality
Reduced maturation time
Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
New products and growing techniques

-Animals
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
Improved animal health and diagnostic methods

-Environment
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
Conservation of soil, water, and energy
Bioprocessing for forestry products
Better natural waste management
More efficient processing

-Society
Increased food security for growing populations


The Cons (minus the ones that would be eliminated by communism):

-Safety
Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources

-Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal


So, the technocrats of Technoland determine that using GM foods, everyone will have plenty of everything to eat for the upcoming year. GM will significantly boost efficiency and therefore maximize yield.

People are unsure of the long-term health risks and ethical dilemma of playing God with genetics. Astoundingly, some of the technocrats disagree with the majority of scientists who say GM is good and safe and publicize studies showing detrimental effects to people, animals, and the environment. They vote to not go with GM foods, which reduces yield and ends up in scarcity.

Given that technocracy is based on the elimination of scarcity, what is the optimal solution?

A> Ration those goods that were scarce this year, likely creating black market.
B> Use GM foods next year regardless of public's opinion of the food, risking the probability that people will simply refuse to eat what's been produced, creating a whole new set of problems.
C> Something else. Explain, in specific detail.

Fun One Number 2: Eggs

The technocrats of Technoland determine that eggs are unhealthy and lead to too much cholesterol, and therefore suggest they be eliminated from production this year. The public, ever health conscious, votes to accept this recommendation. Of course some people will still want eggs, which will create a black market.

Two years later, the Technocrats determine that eggs are actually good for you. Technocracy says we'll produce lots of eggs and public agrees.

Two years later, the Technocrats determine once again that eggs are bad for you and so eggs should be eliminated. Public, now exasperated with ever-changing scientific consensus on eggs, votes against this proposal and demands eggs.

What is the rational solution?

A>Eggs are produced per the public's wishes, regardless of the objective evidence that eggs are bad for you.
B>Eggs are not produced because objective evidence of eggs' harm to citizenry overrides personal taste.
C>Something else. Explain, in specific detail.


Question 3: DDT

Technocracy of Technoland comes up with brilliant new product that kills a dangerous disease that is having a drastic effect on the population of Malarialand. Technocracy puts use of DDT to a vote and, eager to fight this disease, the population overwhelmingly votes to produce lots of DDT.

5 years later, it is determined that DDT has resulted in a massive reduction in the population of several species of birds and reptiles. Technocracy faces a dilemma: no effective substitute for DDT has been developed. If production is banned in the name of environmental quality, cases of the dangerous infectious disease will certainly skyrocket. If production is continued, Malarialand faces a serious threat to its animal population, and the Technocrats of Malarialand are very environmentally friendly.

What do the technocrats advocate as the optimal solution?

Question 4: The people's glorious automobile

Technocrats decide it is time to create Technoland's new automobile. Environmentally friendly, they decide it should be as fuel efficient as possible. But in the course of testing a new hybrid, they discover that the doors crumple easily and are not acceptably safe when it comes to side-impact accidents.

They realize they have two options: add steel beams to the doors to reduce crumping and/or add side-impact airbags. They realize they have problems:

Adding effectively-strong beams to the doors adds so much weight that fuel economy drops. They further discover that they do not have enough raw or recycled material to install enough beams in all the cars they plan to produce.

Side-impact airbags are highly technical, and they disover that they do not have the production capacity to make enough airbags for all the cars they plan to produce. They could suggest that the airbag factory workers add another hour to their workday, but the union is indicating it's not likely to do it.

What is the optimal solution?

A>Produce the car without side-impact improvements, resulting in more deaths and injuries due to less-safe cars.
B>Produce fewer cars with the door beams, meaning demand is not met, fuel efficiency declines and the materials for the beams cannot be used for anything else.
C>Produce fewer cars with airbags, meaning demand for vehicles is not met, and the labor and materials for the airbags cannot be used for anything else.
D>Produce some of both, meaning total fuel efficiency is lower than the optimal level.

Question 5: The freeway

Having optimally placed a new distribution hub 20 miles north of Technopolis, the technocrats of Technoland discover that traffic congestion has significantly reduced the efficiency of transporting goods between the hub and the city. Due to the nature of the goods being transported, a new freeway is needed.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so in theory the optimal solution is to build a straight 20 mile freeway between the hub and downtown Technopolis. However, straight in between the two is Central Technopark, which houses a virgin wooded area, pond, and recreational facilities.

To the east of Central Technopark is a densely-populated area of brand new People's Glorious Apartment complexes. To tear any down would mean wasting significant amounts of resources and moving a lot of people who do not want to be moved. To the west of Central Technopark is an area of housing that had been looked at for demolition, however it has developed into quite a cultural center for the Technominorities, who value their culture and like their neighborhood and who have threatened to riot if their neighborhood is torn down.

What is the optimal solution?

A> Demolish Central Technopark, which the citizens will not want.
B> Demolish the People's Glorious Apartment Complex, which its citizens will not want and which will waste a significant investment of resources made just a few years ago.
C> Demolish Little Technominority, at the risk of starting a riot.
D> Build a tunnel, at significantly higher cost in resources than an over-land route.
E> Build a superbridge, which nobody wants to look at and which would cost significantly more in resources than an over-land route.
F> Something else. Be specific.

Question 6: Energy

Energy demands in Technoland are starting to outstrip supply. New technologies are still in development and will not be feasible for at least 10-15 years, while demand for energy will be above the supply in 3-5 years.

The Technocrats have an idea: Technofalls, right up Technoriver from Technopolis. Installing a hydroelectric plant would produce significant additional energy with little pollution and little cost.

However, Technofalls is a popular recreational destination due to its beauty and location near prime wilderness in Technonational Park. To build the hydroelectric plant would significantly degrade its natural beauty and is not a popular idea with environmentalists who are worried that the Technosalmon population may be affected, or the public as a whole.

Technocrats determine that the Technofalls project is the only viable option, and the only other solution would be to ration energy for some time. This idea is similarly unpopular with the public.

What is the optimal solution?

A> Go ahead with the project, endangering the Technosalmon population and angering the public that has lost a prime recreational opportunity.
B> Ration electricity until new technologies are available and implemented on a widespread basis, also quite unpopular with the public.
C> Something else. Be specific.



Pretending that political and resource constraints will not exist is not an answer. Give it a shot.

[MrDoom]

<_<

Completely in the realm of speculation, and hence pointless. The solution would present itself when those issues crop up, given variables present at that time.

Besides, I am no engineer, and will not waste time working out your little &#39;puzzles&#39; for your amusement; especially when the problems given are from a perspective that does not even understand where the technocratic viewpoint comes from and continues to toss arguments like "intrinsic values" (whatever that means) despite continued rebuttal.

Before you posit any more of these little &#39;brain-busters&#39;, you should read at the minimum a short, 40-odd page book, Technocracy: Technological Continental Design (http://www.technocracy.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=getit&lid=2). Having a sense of persective certainly aids valid criticism. It&#39;s a condensed version of a more definitive document, but it gets the point across.

[chimx]

I&#39;m more concerned about GM food and how it relates to infringing on plant species natural evolutionary course. By genetically altering plants to be stronger, more nutritious, etc., what are the ecological and evolutionary implications? How can we ensure that modified species will not taint the natural gene pool?

[ZeroPain]

I&#39;m more concerned about GM food and how it relates to infringing on plant species natural evolutionary course. By genetically altering plants to be stronger, more nutritious, etc., what are the ecological and evolutionary implications? How can we ensure that modified species will not taint the natural gene pool?

We already alter the course of their evolution by artificial selection, GM is just going a step further with modern technology.

[chimx]

Then it is taking a step further towards greater potential ecological consequences.

[rouchambeau]

With all the harm that human intervention in the environment has done I feel it&#39;s only reasonable to oppose any more of it.

[MrDoom]

Guys, the technology thread is here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61028&st=0&#entry1292244572). This thread is about technocracy, not GM foods or their ecological effects. <_<

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:37 pm
Besides, I am no engineer, and will not waste time working out your little &#39;puzzles&#39; for your amusement; especially when the problems given are from a perspective that does not even understand where the technocratic viewpoint comes from and continues to toss arguments like "intrinsic values" (whatever that means) despite continued rebuttal.


:lol:

Translation: Nuh uh, problems like that won&#39;t happen.

Figures.

[Dimentio]

It is interesting questions you have. Engineers struggle with the same questions no matter what system it is. We technocrats do not claim that resource infringements does&#39;nt exist, but we claim that there is an inherent relative abundance in the human being&#39;s capacity to consume in relation to the productive capacity.

The most interesting question was about the freeway. Theoretically, freeways, which are by all means a waste of resources, would be scrapped in a technate. But let for a moment pretend that the technate by some reason decides to build a freeway. I cannot speak for the engineers on that project, but they will decide between different options and then eventually find the optimal one, without interventions from businessmen or politicians.

There could perhaps exist a conflict between the engineers and the people in building projects, that is why NET explores reforms of the instituting of a double-structure of a [directs] democratic sphere balancing the technocratic sphere.

Thank you for valuable questions. But you really should ask isenhand or some others of our members which have knowledge of these issues.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:33 am

I&#39;m more concerned about GM food and how it relates to infringing on plant species natural evolutionary course. By genetically altering plants to be stronger, more nutritious, etc., what are the ecological and evolutionary implications? How can we ensure that modified species will not taint the natural gene pool?

We already alter the course of their evolution by artificial selection, GM is just going a step further with modern technology.
What if people don&#39;t want to eat it?

It&#39;s easy to say "Produce it because it would maximize your yield", but if people don&#39;t want it, what do you do?

Eliminating the sale of beef would increase yields of grains for human consumption, but what if people want beef?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 19, 2007 03:51 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 19, 2007 03:51 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 11:37 pm
Besides, I am no engineer, and will not waste time working out your little &#39;puzzles&#39; for your amusement; especially when the problems given are from a perspective that does not even understand where the technocratic viewpoint comes from and continues to toss arguments like "intrinsic values" (whatever that means) despite continued rebuttal.


:lol:

Translation: Nuh uh, problems like that won&#39;t happen.

Figures. [/b]
I didn&#39;t say that, troll.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:15 pm
WOW you have way to much freetime on your hands today. :lol:
That took all of 10 minutes.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Is a technocratic society authoritarian?

Rule by smart scientists and such?

[t_wolves_fan]

It is interesting questions you have. Engineers struggle with the same questions no matter what system it is.

The problem is, public policy is not decided by engineers. The options can be provided by engineers, but even if the engineer comes up with the most rational and efficient option known to man, it means absolutely nothing if people won&#39;t accept it.

Do you understand that? If people don&#39;t like it, they&#39;ll either prevent its implementation through protest or ruin its effectiveness by not acting as the engineers expected.


We technocrats do not claim that resource infringements does&#39;nt exist, but we claim that there is an inherent relative abundance in the human being&#39;s capacity to consume in relation to the productive capacity.

Can you flesh out the concept "human being&#39;s capacity to consume"? I ask because it seems you have this preconceived notion that there is some optimal level at which people should consume. If that level is lower that where people will consume you understand that you&#39;re going to have problems, right?


The most interesting question was about the freeway. Theoretically, freeways, which are by all means a waste of resources, would be scrapped in a technate. But let for a moment pretend that the technate by some reason decides to build a freeway. I cannot speak for the engineers on that project, but they will decide between different options and then eventually find the optimal one, without interventions from businessmen or politicians.

Freeways may seem wasteful, but they are necessary, aren&#39;t they? In the logistics and distribution process, you can only move so much by train or by boat. Using aircraft is even more wasteful. Think about it: could you move every good by train? That would necessitate the construction of massive distribution centers to be relatively effective and efficient, would it not? Because if you want smaller, more local or specialized distribution centers (i.e. local stores), rail makes far less sense than trucking.

Even more important: people like to drive. Your statement about freeways ignores that. Can you imagine going to any American city and informing the public that effective in a year their cars will be taken away and the freeways will be demolished? Whether you like it or not, people like to be able to drive by themselves directly to their chosen destinations without having to take a crowded train or multiple trains that require connections. How does your technocracy incorporate this value? It doesn&#39;t. It pretends it doesn&#39;t exist. It assumes that commuters and travelers are standard actors in a system that can be manipulated any way you want.


There could perhaps exist a conflict between the engineers and the people in building projects, that is why NET explores reforms of the instituting of a double-structure of a [directs] democratic sphere balancing the technocratic sphere.

It&#39;s not "perhaps", there is going to be conflicts.


Thank you for valuable questions. But you really should ask isenhand or some others of our members which have knowledge of these issues.

Maybe I will.

[Dimentio]

Hahaha... no. ;)

On the contrary. Technocracy could be said to be a system where the subject which is going to be controlled is the infrastructure and production instead of human beings. The technicians, scientists, engineers and personnel of the technate are not legislators, politicians, or controllers.

The goal of the technocratic organ, the technate, is to "allow the highest possible standard of life to the highest possible number of people for the longest possible time period."

http://www.technocracyeurope.eu

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:09 pm

It is interesting questions you have. Engineers struggle with the same questions no matter what system it is.

The problem is, public policy is not decided by engineers. The options can be provided by engineers, but even if the engineer comes up with the most rational and efficient option known to man, it means absolutely nothing if people won&#39;t accept it.

Do you understand that? If people don&#39;t like it, they&#39;ll either prevent its implementation through protest or ruin its effectiveness by not acting as the engineers expected.


We technocrats do not claim that resource infringements does&#39;nt exist, but we claim that there is an inherent relative abundance in the human being&#39;s capacity to consume in relation to the productive capacity.

Can you flesh out the concept "human being&#39;s capacity to consume"? I ask because it seems you have this preconceived notion that there is some optimal level at which people should consume. If that level is lower that where people will consume you understand that you&#39;re going to have problems, right?


The most interesting question was about the freeway. Theoretically, freeways, which are by all means a waste of resources, would be scrapped in a technate. But let for a moment pretend that the technate by some reason decides to build a freeway. I cannot speak for the engineers on that project, but they will decide between different options and then eventually find the optimal one, without interventions from businessmen or politicians.

Freeways may seem wasteful, but they are necessary, aren&#39;t they? In the logistics and distribution process, you can only move so much by train or by boat. Using aircraft is even more wasteful. Think about it: could you move every good by train? That would necessitate the construction of massive distribution centers to be relatively effective and efficient, would it not? Because if you want smaller, more local or specialized distribution centers (i.e. local stores), rail makes far less sense than trucking.

Even more important: people like to drive. Your statement about freeways ignores that. Can you imagine going to any American city and informing the public that effective in a year their cars will be taken away and the freeways will be demolished? Whether you like it or not, people like to be able to drive by themselves directly to their chosen destinations without having to take a crowded train or multiple trains that require connections. How does your technocracy incorporate this value? It doesn&#39;t. It pretends it doesn&#39;t exist. It assumes that commuters and travelers are standard actors in a system that can be manipulated any way you want.


There could perhaps exist a conflict between the engineers and the people in building projects, that is why NET explores reforms of the instituting of a double-structure of a [directs] democratic sphere balancing the technocratic sphere.

It&#39;s not "perhaps", there is going to be conflicts.


Thank you for valuable questions. But you really should ask isenhand or some others of our members which have knowledge of these issues.

Maybe I will.
You see, a car has a very low load factor [total usage/number of cars]. People like to drive though, so the solution is to create some form of a car-pool for ther urbanate. I guess that a lot of Americans would be very enraged by that alone [Europeans are a bit different, the car is not so much of a cultural symbol here]. And yes, you are right in that there will be conflicts during the installation.

The same thing with engineers in general. They could propose solutions [people would not riot if they do not like the solutions in a hypothetical technocratic sector-only technate, unless the solution is really garish]. Given the huge reconstruction the technate is going to make of the infrastructure in the beginning, that is extremely important.

And yes, I agree that cultural issues must be taken into account. That is why we need a symbiosis between a technocratic sphere and a democratic sphere.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

assuming everyone in the technocratic society had a high standard of education, would the populace choose (elect) the people who would form the technate?

Or would it not be subject to democracy?

Like, internal concesus on who should get in or not?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:11 pm
On the contrary. Technocracy could be said to be a system where the subject which is going to be controlled is the infrastructure and production instead of human beings. The technicians, scientists, engineers and personnel of the technate are not legislators, politicians, or controllers.


The market already places control of production in the hands of scientists and engineers once a market need is identified. That&#39;s why companies hire engineers to design production in order to save as much cost as possible. In building public infrastructure, elected officials determine the need and then turn the job over to educated and experienced professionals.

Government intrusions into the market, i.e. agricultural subsidies, are not a requirement of capitalism and in fact go directly against it. They are political decisions based on interest-group politics, which I see no reason to assume will go away in any alternative political system that allows freedom of speech and association. Hell even the communists here consistently refer to workers&#39; unions in individual collectives, which will inevitably form interest groups that look out for their own interests.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:21 pm
assuming everyone in the technocratic society had a high standard of education, would the populace choose (elect) the people who would form the technate?

Or would it not be subject to democracy?

Like, internal concesus on who should get in or not?
Excellent questions.

Further, how can scientific consensus be assured? My wife works in the health care field, which is highly scientific. On some relatively basic procedures she has two supervisors who disagree vehemently with one another over how to treat certain conditions. What will be the mechanism for making a choice when scientific disagreement occurs?

[t_wolves_fan]

You see, a car has a very low load factor [total usage/number of cars]. People like to drive though, so the solution is to create some form of a car-pool for ther urbanate. I guess that a lot of Americans would be very enraged by that alone [Europeans are a bit different, the car is not so much of a cultural symbol here]. And yes, you are right in that there will be conflicts during the installation.

Who wins the conflict? Policy-makers here have tried for decades to induce carpooling and have completely failed.

So who wins if people don&#39;t want to do it? Are they forced to do it, making it undemocratic, or do the people win, resulting in an inefficient transportation system?


And yes, I agree that cultural issues must be taken into account. That is why we need a symbiosis between a technocratic sphere and a democratic sphere.

You still aren&#39;t taking personal tastes and values as seriously as they warrant. You&#39;re thinking like an engineer: how do we design a system to induce actors to act as we want? Societies do not operate that way.

[ZeroPain]

What if people don&#39;t want to eat it?

Then get a Non-GM chicken and raise it for eggs, if your to lazy to do that then its your own fault and you should just not eat eggs.



To most of t_wolves_fan&#39;s posts:

Basically you ignore the role of people in technocracy, you envision it as a society where everything is forced on people by engineers who have supreme authority.

[Dimentio]

In fact, almost all people would during a time of their life be personnel of the technate. The personnel of the technate, be them doctors, engineers or technicians, are chosen from interest, level of education and skill.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:55 pm
I didn&#39;t say that, troll.
Sure you did.

"Values don&#39;t exist. We can just design society to operate like a computer. No problemo."

At least Serpent is putting some thought into it.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:29 pm

You see, a car has a very low load factor [total usage/number of cars]. People like to drive though, so the solution is to create some form of a car-pool for ther urbanate. I guess that a lot of Americans would be very enraged by that alone [Europeans are a bit different, the car is not so much of a cultural symbol here]. And yes, you are right in that there will be conflicts during the installation.

Who wins the conflict? Policy-makers here have tried for decades to induce carpooling and have completely failed.

So who wins if people don&#39;t want to do it? Are they forced to do it, making it undemocratic, or do the people win, resulting in an inefficient transportation system?


And yes, I agree that cultural issues must be taken into account. That is why we need a symbiosis between a technocratic sphere and a democratic sphere.

You still aren&#39;t taking personal tastes and values as seriously as they warrant. You&#39;re thinking like an engineer: how do we design a system to induce actors to act as we want? Societies do not operate that way.
Most systems operates that way. Otherwise, the current system would&#39;nt have correctional facilities, juvenile facilities or mental asylums. In fact, one could argue that even non-voluntary education of children consists of that type of use of coercion.

My proposal is to have direct-democratic, de-centralised sphere parallell to the technate, a sphere which would be responsible for legislation and could solve dilemmas with the technate, like the issue of a cultural site contra a free-way or depot for example.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Can i just ask,

What are technocratic prisons like?

Is there a police force?

Is there economic equality?

[t_wolves_fan]

Most systems operates that way. Otherwise, the current system would&#39;nt have correctional facilities, juvenile facilities or mental asylums. In fact, one could argue that even non-voluntary education of children consists of that type of use of coercion.

Indeed, but these controls are much more limited than what you are proposing. Your system seems to place everything in daily life up for public and technocratic inspection. We teach children and punish criminals for their own good, but when it comes to how people are going to move around we basically let them decide (the existence of so many freeways in the U.S. is a testament to the dominant value of individual, direct transportation).

When it comes to food, for instance, is food production up to the technate and democratic choice? Or would the market work to let people grow what they want in response to market demand?


My proposal is to have direct-democratic, de-centralised sphere parallell to the technate, a sphere which would be responsible for legislation and could solve dilemmas with the technate, like the issue of a cultural site contra a free-way or depot for example.

You still haven&#39;t addressed my question so I will rephrase it. Who do you think ought to win if the technate came to the U.S. and said, "Your autos now belong to us and freeway demolition will begin tomorrow" and people overwhelmingly responding by saying "kiss my ass"?

[Dimentio]

People will decide what is going to be produced, the personnel of the technate decides how it is going to be produced.

Personally, I do not understand the free-way fixation. I could understand that it is viewed as a freedom enhancer by a lot of Americans though, even though the whole culture of bilism is a giant mis-allocation of resources and energy inefficient [personally I do not have a driver&#39;s license since a car in Sweden is the greatest net loss economically an individual could make].

The reconstruction of infrastructure would be the most controversial part, but we cannot free energy resources to enhance life standard with the current energy inefficient solutions on our infrastructure [the current infrastructure is spurred by economic growth rather than energy-efficiency in mind].

Of course, these reforms need to be anchored in the will of the population, but it would become a great deal of stress.

[ichneumon]

Question 3: DDT

Technocracy of Technoland comes up with brilliant new product that kills a dangerous disease that is having a drastic effect on the population of Malarialand. Technocracy puts use of DDT to a vote and, eager to fight this disease, the population overwhelmingly votes to produce lots of DDT.

5 years later, it is determined that DDT has resulted in a massive reduction in the population of several species of birds and reptiles. Technocracy faces a dilemma: no effective substitute for DDT has been developed. If production is banned in the name of environmental quality, cases of the dangerous infectious disease will certainly skyrocket. If production is continued, Malarialand faces a serious threat to its animal population, and the Technocrats of Malarialand are very environmentally friendly.

just fyi, this is not how anti-malarial DDT is used. spraying the swamps, using tons of DDT is worse than useless. the mosquitos become resistant - they already have the genes, our best weapon is gone. what we use is fogger-bombs that coat the *insides* of houses with DDT-polymer, so that mosquitos landing on walls die. this is VERY effective. we also make insect nets that are impregnated with DDT.

the DDT/bird thing was caused by using DDT as a general pesticide. it&#39;s useless for that now, all pests are resistant. the USA loses a larger percentage of our crops to pests now than we did in the &#39;20&#39;s.

the real weapon we have now is an anopholes GMO mosquito tweaked so that it can&#39;t transmit malaria. it also is more fecund than regular mosquitos, just naturally, as the plasmodium parasite takes a toll on the mosquito vector also. if we released them, they should replace the natural vector mosquitoes completely. particularly if we included a pesticide resistance gene and then used that pesticide on the swamps. but....no one will let that happen. so 4,000 people die every day from malaria. go figure.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:43 pm
Personally, I do not understand the free-way fixation. I could understand that it is viewed as a freedom enhancer by a lot of Americans though, even though the whole culture of bilism is a giant mis-allocation of resources and energy inefficient [personally I do not have a driver&#39;s license since a car in Sweden is the greatest net loss economically an individual could make].


That&#39;s the basic problem: you don&#39;t seem to understand how people could possibly choose individual freedom and convenience over efficiency, yet people make such economically irrational choices all the time in the name of some subjective value.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 19, 2007 04:30 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 19, 2007 04:30 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:55 pm
I didn&#39;t say that, troll.
Sure you did.

"Values don&#39;t exist. We can just design society to operate like a computer. No problemo." [/b]
I never said anything regarding &#39;society&#39;. If you&#39;re going to ignore my posts, then I&#39;ll stop wasting my time.


At least Serpent is putting some thought into it.

He hasn&#39;t posted anything fundamentally differentiated from what I&#39;ve posted in other threads. He just hasn&#39;t gotten tired of your trolling.

[Dimentio]

Believe me, it have been a really hard time to learning patience. Compared to some other persons, TWF is nice.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:47 pm
Compared to some other persons, TWF is nice.
He&#39;s a troll. He knows it, I know it, Doom and Cryotank know it. THe fact that he can string a coherent sentence together is what&#39;s stopping him from being banned as a troll.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:47 pm
Believe me, it have been a really hard time to learning patience. Compared to some other persons, TWF is nice.
In your PM you said food distribution centers would be created to distribute food but that the consumer would still be king. This begs the question: how would new offerings of food be introduced into the market when there&#39;s practically a fixed amount of "food distribution space" available in a city?

What I mean is, right now to bring a new product, in this case food offering, to market one need only find a way to sell it. One can sell their food over the internet, one can rent a cart on the sidewalk, one can open a restaurant, lease, etc. Generally, options are available to them to put their product on the market.

If food distribution is limited to certain "depots", however, what would be the process to get a new product some shelf space? Would someone who wants to sell something new be able to sell it out of their People&#39;s Glorious Dormitory, or on the street, or would they be allowed only to market it out of the depot?


Basically, explain how a new product would be brought to market in your system.

Thanks.

[MrDoom]

Your question is incorrect. There is no market in technocracy. &#39;Buying&#39; and &#39;selling&#39; are functionally impossible.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 02:34 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 02:34 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 12:47 pm
Believe me, it have been a really hard time to learning patience. Compared to some other persons, TWF is nice.
In your PM you said food distribution centers would be created to distribute food but that the consumer would still be king. This begs the question: how would new offerings of food be introduced into the market when there&#39;s practically a fixed amount of "food distribution space" available in a city?

What I mean is, right now to bring a new product, in this case food offering, to market one need only find a way to sell it. One can sell their food over the internet, one can rent a cart on the sidewalk, one can open a restaurant, lease, etc. Generally, options are available to them to put their product on the market.

If food distribution is limited to certain "depots", however, what would be the process to get a new product some shelf space? Would someone who wants to sell something new be able to sell it out of their People&#39;s Glorious Dormitory, or on the street, or would they be allowed only to market it out of the depot?


Basically, explain how a new product would be brought to market in your system.

Thanks. [/b]
There is, as mrDoom says, correct to assert that there is indeed no market in a technocratic system. There is no money, and no businessmen.

If people wants to have new food products, they just file in electronic inputs and the technate is obliged to produce what they want, or distribute it from production facilities to the various urbanates. The technate is producing after it&#39;s input from the people. There are no profit incentives or businessmen.

The depots would basically be equivalents to our supermarkets.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:11 pm
If people wants to have new food products, they just file in electronic inputs and the technate is obliged to produce what they want, or distribute it from production facilities to the various urbanates. The technate is producing after it&#39;s input from the people. There are no profit incentives or businessmen.

The depots would basically be equivalents to our supermarkets.
How can it be assumed that individual requests for products can be met given resource, production, and time constraints? Obligated production would possibly create unrestrained demand, would it not?

You also didn&#39;t really answer my question, as it was not about the consumer but the producer. How does a producer get his idea introduced into the production stream?

[MrDoom]

The nitty-gritty details is pure speculation. In general, however, one can imagine; it depends on the technical feasibility of the idea.

If it is simply a variation of an existing product, the energy costs of the old and new products are calulated and compared by the Sequence of Research, after load factors are accounted for. If the new product variant costs less energy per use/function per item (ie, energy cost per kilometer for the lifespan of tires, etc.), it would generally be considered an improvement. Otherwise, it&#39;s a waste of energy if it preforms the same function and costs more energy per unit of use.

An entirely new product, on the other hand, would require extensive design and testing by the Sequence of Research, and an optimal energy-cost per use/function determined. That&#39;s more or less how new inventions are created nowadays.

In all of this, the Sequence of Research would have to have the ability to cut into the production of Industrial Sequences for purposes of experimentation and testing.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:05 pm
The nitty-gritty details is pure speculation.
You&#39;re right, we should push ahead with a new economic system without worrying much about how people will react within the system and how the specifics might play out.

I&#39;m with you: let&#39;s just march in the streets with signs saying "Technocracy Now&#33;" and assume everything will work out hunky-dory.


If, on the other hand, you&#39;d care to engage in an admittedly pointless and somewhat academic debate that requires some thought and consideration, answer this: what if people want the product regardless of its economic efficiency? In other words, what if the technocrats decide to produce a new variation of a product because of its efficient qualities but people still want the old version?

[Dimentio]

Technocracy would not be created tomorrow. Believe me, we are doing a lot of research in the field of implementation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:18 pm
Technocracy would not be created tomorrow. Believe me, we are doing a lot of research in the field of implementation.
You sure have lots to figure out. No question it&#39;d take a social change of epic proportions.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:05 pm
The nitty-gritty details is pure speculation.
You&#39;re right, we should push ahead with a new economic system without worrying much about how people will react within the system and how the specifics might play out.

I&#39;m with you: let&#39;s just march in the streets with signs saying "Technocracy Now&#33;" and assume everything will work out hunky-dory.

The specifics of implementation can be no more determined than a caveman could describe our current society. The exact details of production are not important, what is important is the function and the requirements of design, and the limits set by those requirements. Whatever future variables (ie, new methods of production, technologies, etc.) exist that could be in effect, it will be up to that generation to deal with them in a functional manner.


If, on the other hand, you&#39;d care to engage in an admittedly pointless and somewhat academic debate that requires some thought and consideration, answer this: what if people want the product regardless of its economic efficiency? In other words, what if the technocrats decide to produce a new variation of a product because of its efficient qualities but people still want the old version?

The real issue is not a direct corelation of what people like to its efficiency. What would have to be determined is why people like the old &#39;version&#39;, and redesign it to retain those likable qualities while improving energy costs. People don&#39;t like something because it&#39;s less efficient than a new product, they like it because of some critical aspect or detail.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:42 pm
The real issue is not a direct corelation of what people like to its efficiency. What would have to be determined is why people like the old &#39;version&#39;, and redesign it to retain those likable qualities while improving energy costs. People don&#39;t like something because it&#39;s less efficient than a new product, they like it because of some critical aspect or detail.
What if it cannot be redesigned as such?

Look at what Serpent said:


If people wants to have new food products, they just file in electronic inputs and the technate is obliged to produce what they want, or distribute it from production facilities to the various urbanates. The technate is producing after it&#39;s input from the people.

First of all want and need will be fluid, making the planning process inherent in Serpent&#39;s explanation very difficult.

Second, it presents a problem. What happens when this quarter&#39;s orders require more production or more resources than the technate can deliver? Remember that neither production nor efficiency gains appear overnight. It takes time to build new production, it takes time to develop new efficiencies, it takes time to train new workers and it takes time to ship goods.

This is the problem with central planning: the system has to deliver what is wanted to maintain political support, so what happens when it cannot deliver? Do some go without? Who? Who chooses who goes without?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 05:35 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 05:35 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:18 pm
Technocracy would not be created tomorrow. Believe me, we are doing a lot of research in the field of implementation.
You sure have lots to figure out. No question it&#39;d take a social change of epic proportions. [/b]
Yes, but someone have to do it. :D

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 06:22 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 06:22 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:42 pm
The real issue is not a direct corelation of what people like to its efficiency. What would have to be determined is why people like the old &#39;version&#39;, and redesign it to retain those likable qualities while improving energy costs. People don&#39;t like something because it&#39;s less efficient than a new product, they like it because of some critical aspect or detail.
What if it cannot be redesigned as such?

Look at what Serpent said:


If people wants to have new food products, they just file in electronic inputs and the technate is obliged to produce what they want, or distribute it from production facilities to the various urbanates. The technate is producing after it&#39;s input from the people.

First of all want and need will be fluid, making the planning process inherent in Serpent&#39;s explanation very difficult.

Second, it presents a problem. What happens when this quarter&#39;s orders require more production or more resources than the technate can deliver? Remember that neither production nor efficiency gains appear overnight. It takes time to build new production, it takes time to develop new efficiencies, it takes time to train new workers and it takes time to ship goods.

This is the problem with central planning: the system has to deliver what is wanted to maintain political support, so what happens when it cannot deliver? Do some go without? Who? Who chooses who goes without? [/b]
There is a limit of consumption in a technate. The limit is decided by the amount of resources available during a specific time period, i.e the resource production capacity. It is not decided by experts but by the physical capacity itself. A part of these resources go to the upkeep of the infrastructure, but the rest is derived to the citizens on the basis of quarters and they are from that point to allocate the resources where they want.

One problem I could see is if we assume that the people do not care about sustainability but only want to consume as much as possible. The technate should not - according to NET - try to have an impact on the values of the consumers, or control the consumers.

Another one is how to decide how the most efficient production process looks, even within abundance. Therefore, it might be a good idea to combine the system of energy accounting with the design of resource-based accounting [advocated by TVP] as a denominating system within the technate.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 22, 2007 07:42 pm--> (Serpent @ January 22, 2007 07:42 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 06:22 pm
[Look at what Serpent said:


If people wants to have new food products, they just file in electronic inputs and the technate is obliged to produce what they want, or distribute it from production facilities to the various urbanates. The technate is producing after it&#39;s input from the people.

First of all want and need will be fluid, making the planning process inherent in Serpent&#39;s explanation very difficult.

Second, it presents a problem. What happens when this quarter&#39;s orders require more production or more resources than the technate can deliver? Remember that neither production nor efficiency gains appear overnight. It takes time to build new production, it takes time to develop new efficiencies, it takes time to train new workers and it takes time to ship goods.

This is the problem with central planning: the system has to deliver what is wanted to maintain political support, so what happens when it cannot deliver? Do some go without? Who? Who chooses who goes without?

There is a limit of consumption in a technate. [/b]
Then you misspoke when you said the technate is "obliged" to give the consumers what they want, because there is a limit to how many wants and needs will be met.


The limit is decided by the amount of resources available during a specific time period, i.e the resource production capacity. It is not decided by experts but by the physical capacity itself. A part of these resources go to the upkeep of the infrastructure, but the rest is derived to the citizens on the basis of quarters and they are from that point to allocate the resources where they want.

How exactly do the citizens divide up this quarter&#39;s resources? Simply by shopping, or by voting how they are to be used ahead of time?

You&#39;re going to have to explain this because I&#39;m having a hard time figuring out how it makes sense.


One problem I could see is if we assume that the people do not care about sustainability but only want to consume as much as possible. The technate should not - according to NET - try to have an impact on the values of the consumers, or control the consumers.

That&#39;s the key tradeoff here: giving people more energy credits than they can spend gives them an incentive to spend those energy credits. Giving them too few means they don&#39;t get as much stuff as they want, which leads to political problems. You&#39;re betting on a planning organiztion being able to accurately guess how much of everything everyone wants or needs in real time. Yikes&#33;

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 02:42 pm
There is a limit of consumption in a technate. The limit is decided by the amount of resources available during a specific time period, i.e the resource production capacity. It is not decided by experts but by the physical capacity itself. A part of these resources go to the upkeep of the infrastructure, but the rest is derived to the citizens on the basis of quarters and they are from that point to allocate the resources where they want.

One problem I could see is if we assume that the people do not care about sustainability but only want to consume as much as possible. The technate should not - according to NET - try to have an impact on the values of the consumers, or control the consumers.

Another one is how to decide how the most efficient production process looks, even within abundance. Therefore, it might be a good idea to combine the system of energy accounting with the design of resource-based accounting [advocated by TVP] as a denominating system within the technate.

Yes, there is a limit to resources in a technate. There is a limit to resources in a capitalist environment as well. Heck, there are limits in all economic systems

So now we agree, there are limits to productions. Those limits are not just the physical capacity to produce. But they also include:
1. Time
2. people
3. availability of component resources
4. natural limitations (fires, storms ect).

There are probably others.


So the people can allocate resources, the technate will determine how the resources are allocated, is what i believe you suggested earlier. But they have to do so in the manner of the above mentioned limits.

So how are the resources allocated? You suggesting a "denominating system" which is a fancy word for "money." How would that work in a technate system

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:43 pm
People will decide what is going to be produced, the personnel of the technate decides how it is going to be produced.

Personally, I do not understand the free-way fixation. I could understand that it is viewed as a freedom enhancer by a lot of Americans though, even though the whole culture of bilism is a giant mis-allocation of resources and energy inefficient [personally I do not have a driver&#39;s license since a car in Sweden is the greatest net loss economically an individual could make].

The reconstruction of infrastructure would be the most controversial part, but we cannot free energy resources to enhance life standard with the current energy inefficient solutions on our infrastructure [the current infrastructure is spurred by economic growth rather than energy-efficiency in mind].

Of course, these reforms need to be anchored in the will of the population, but it would become a great deal of stress.

What is the standard for determining if something is "efficient" in a technate?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 22, 2007 08:08 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 22, 2007 08:08 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 02:42 pm
There is a limit of consumption in a technate. The limit is decided by the amount of resources available during a specific time period, i.e the resource production capacity. It is not decided by experts but by the physical capacity itself. A part of these resources go to the upkeep of the infrastructure, but the rest is derived to the citizens on the basis of quarters and they are from that point to allocate the resources where they want.

One problem I could see is if we assume that the people do not care about sustainability but only want to consume as much as possible. The technate should not - according to NET - try to have an impact on the values of the consumers, or control the consumers.

Another one is how to decide how the most efficient production process looks, even within abundance. Therefore, it might be a good idea to combine the system of energy accounting with the design of resource-based accounting [advocated by TVP] as a denominating system within the technate.

Yes, there is a limit to resources in a technate. There is a limit to resources in a capitalist environment as well. Heck, there are limits in all economic systems

So now we agree, there are limits to productions. Those limits are not just the physical capacity to produce. But they also include:
1. Time
2. people
3. availability of component resources
4. natural limitations (fires, storms ect).

There are probably others.


So the people can allocate resources, the technate will determine how the resources are allocated, is what i believe you suggested earlier. But they have to do so in the manner of the above mentioned limits.

So how are the resources allocated? You suggesting a "denominating system" which is a fancy word for "money." How would that work in a technate system [/b]
1. The total production capacity would be divided into equal shares on the number of individuals living inside the operational area. The share one single individual receives is called an "energy quota", in an electronic card called "the energy certifikate", and the units are called "energy credits".

2. Energy credits could not be saved over one consumption cycle. You could not give them away or trade with another individual using them. They cease to exist when used. They could only be used in relation to the technate.

3. When the consumers use their energy credits, the technate adapts it&#39;s production after their preferences which they have revealed by their usage of the energy certifikate.

Thus, the technate is not employing a market system, but a distributionist system.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 22, 2007 08:12 pm--> (ZX3 @ January 22, 2007 08:12 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 12:43 pm
People will decide what is going to be produced, the personnel of the technate decides how it is going to be produced.

Personally, I do not understand the free-way fixation. I could understand that it is viewed as a freedom enhancer by a lot of Americans though, even though the whole culture of bilism is a giant mis-allocation of resources and energy inefficient [personally I do not have a driver&#39;s license since a car in Sweden is the greatest net loss economically an individual could make].

The reconstruction of infrastructure would be the most controversial part, but we cannot free energy resources to enhance life standard with the current energy inefficient solutions on our infrastructure [the current infrastructure is spurred by economic growth rather than energy-efficiency in mind].

Of course, these reforms need to be anchored in the will of the population, but it would become a great deal of stress.

What is the standard for determining if something is "efficient" in a technate? [/b]
Energy investment in a given product in relation to the durability and quality of the product, as well as employed load factors utilised in production.

[t_wolves_fan]

Here are the major problems I see with a technocratic economic system based on "energy accounting".

Premise One has three parts:

A> it was noted in a previous thread on the topic that people would receive more energy credits than they could possibly spend. This means, in essense, nearly unlimited purchasing power. I do not remember who made this point, it may have been on an external link on the topic.

B> Energy credits would expire after a certain timeframe and could not be banked or transferred.

C> Everyone is guaranteed to get more credits next quarter.

These three provisions create an enormous incentive to consume. With no limit on purchasing power, there is no reason not to spend. With no ability to save, there is no reason not to spend. With no need to worry about future income, there is no reason not to spend. You&#39;ve created three strong incentives to spend every last energy credit.

Premise Two, these energy credits would be distributed based upon available production. This means there is a limit to available production over the specified timeframe, otherwise there would be no need to distribute any certain amount of credits (i.e. unlimited production = unlimited credits to be distributed = why bother with energy credits?). Obviously, physical factors such as limited resources, available labor and available production capacity mean there is a limit to production.

If premises one and two are correct, then there is a disconnect between purchaser and producer of epic proportions. Unlimited purchasing power + limited production = inflation and, by definition, shortages. The result would be a run on production to spend the excess credits and get the available output before others do, leaving them with useless credits.

Now, given that we cannot simply decide that there is unlimited production capacity over the given timeframe, provision A of Premise 1 has to be rejected. There has to be a limit on purchasing power because you cannot purchase more than you can produce. This is, in essence, scarcity. However, B and C leave two strong incentives to consume.

Premise Three: in order for there to be no market created by the condition above, we have to assume that people will be happy, materially, with whatever level of consumption that number of credits provides.

This is a huge risk. It is further exacerbated by the premise that people will value a good or service primarily for its energy cost. While the cost of a good or service in energy credits will mimmic the current cost of a good or service in dollars (i.e. energy-intensive purchases will be "expensive" while less energy-intensive purchases will be "cheap"), it ignores the fact that many products and services are demanded for non-price-related criteria. If "price" is tied solely to energy cost, then there is no accounting for non-price-related demand.

Say for instance I want to buy a home in certain location of town. Currently, if there is high demand for that location I will pay a lot; if there is less demand for that location I will pay less. Technocracy says demand for that location does not matter: the price of the home is tied strictly to the cost of the energy that went into it. The result would be intense competition for the home - and for every other good that is similarly valued for criteria other than price - because price no longer matters. And what would happen then? Well, one of two things:

If the good could be produced, then demand would be met. But due to limited total production capacity, other goods could not be produced (i.e. opportunity cost). Hence, people may very well create a shortage of necessary goods if they spent all their energy credits and therefore used up production capacity on non-necessary goods and services. In the current market-based system, such a spike in demand would drive up price, forcing people to purchase something else of less cost, saving them money. That protection is eliminated in technocracy.

If the good could not be produced at a level to meet demand, then scarcity results. There is now a black market for the good where people will trade whatever they can to get the good they want that is no longer available at the People&#39;s Glorious Distribution Center (PGDC). The PGDC would turn into a ticket box office: People would line up for the product, buy it until it&#39;s gone, and then turn around and barter it for who-knows-what.

Premise Four: is the reliance on standardization. This creates a disconnect between production and consumer&#39;s demand for variety. It creates two competing interests: the efficiency-seeking technocrats who control the technology embedded in the means of production, and the consumer-driven suppliers who seek to meet demand. In capitalism, the profit motive unites these two competing interests: you profit more if you meet demand while being efficient. If a technocrat&#39;s incentive is to standardize and maximize efficiency, he is less interested in the variety required to meet demand and vice versa for the suppliers. With no profit motive to unite the two, what happens?

Enjoy.

[colonelguppy]

i always wondered what "amount of energy spent" in production has to do with the percieved value or utility of a good or service.

for example, i could put hundreds of man hours into making a car, where as an assembly line could do it in a fraction of the time with greater quality and precision.

[apathy maybe]

Though I am not a technocrat (I am an anarchist), I thought you might be interested in my response to these issues. (Which despite others claims that they are stupid or silly, I find interesting and worthwhile to address.)

First though, be an anarchist society, there would not be a central planning body or group that decides production.

GM foods (and other GM material), most probably these would not be widespread in an anarchist society. However, they would strictly tested and worked through with kill genes in place to prevent spreading or cross-pollination. (This is fine as there is no profit motive to force people to buy more, they are simply given more.)
On the ethics side of things,
"Violation of natural organisms&#39; intrinsic values", natural organisms don&#39;t have an intrinsic value, only the value we (or others) give them.
"Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species", not a huge problem to my mind.
"Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa", and? We will be testing the stuff.
"Stress for animal", I&#39;m a vegetarian. We wouldn&#39;t be having GM animals anyway.


So out of your three "options", I would take C. Those GM products that have been stringently tested would be grown by those who want to grow them. Those who want to eat or use them will, those who don&#39;t won&#39;t. Because we are not aiming for maximum efficiency, we have no problem with over production, thus ensuring that we don&#39;t have under production.

Eggs. Eggs are produced by those who want to produce them, consumed by those who want to consume them. The scientists can say what they want, but people can also do what they want (so long as they don&#39;t hurt others). The technocrats are not parents forcing someone not to do something which is bad for them, the revolution will have overthrown the paternalistic government, people will not want another one. You may as well ask about alcohol or marijuana, &#39;cause they are both bad for you.

DDT and "Malarialand". DDT would be used correctly as pointed out by at least one other person (not indiscriminately). The scientists who like GM would also likely produce a GM mozzie that kills malaria (rather like what it does with HIV) and after enough testing release it into the wild (without the kill gene thus enabling it to interbreed with the other mozzies). (This is a technocrat solution, I can&#39;t give an anarchist solution, I wouldn&#39;t know.)

Cars. Cars are not a personal good, thus there don&#39;t need to be that many. Those that are produced would have airbags. Resources would also be put into more push bikes and mass public transport.

Roads. Having a distribution centre 20 miles north of the place where the majority of people are that will be using it is just stupid. Thus it is not optimally placed. However, assuming that somehow in this glorious anarchy such a thing happened, most probably a train line would be run next to the "People&#39;s Glorious Apartment complexes" (which were built with sufficient sound proofing so that this is not a problem).

Energy. People would not be using shit loads of energy in my wonderful eco-anarchy. Rather they would be using technology designed to use low amounts of energy, they would be sharing goods such as cars and washing machines (reducing demand for energy and resources), places would be built with good amounts of insulation (reducing demand for energy) and people would just generally turn of their lights when not using them. Thus not a problem.

Hope you enjoy my answers.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:49 pm
Here are the major problems I see with a technocratic economic system based on "energy accounting".

Premise One has three parts:

A> it was noted in a previous thread on the topic that people would receive more energy credits than they could possibly spend. This means, in essense, nearly unlimited purchasing power. I do not remember who made this point, it may have been on an external link on the topic.

B> Energy credits would expire after a certain timeframe and could not be banked or transferred.

C> Everyone is guaranteed to get more credits next quarter.

These three provisions create an enormous incentive to consume. With no limit on purchasing power, there is no reason not to spend. With no ability to save, there is no reason not to spend. With no need to worry about future income, there is no reason not to spend. You&#39;ve created three strong incentives to spend every last energy credit.

Premise Two, these energy credits would be distributed based upon available production. This means there is a limit to available production over the specified timeframe, otherwise there would be no need to distribute any certain amount of credits (i.e. unlimited production = unlimited credits to be distributed = why bother with energy credits?). Obviously, physical factors such as limited resources, available labor and available production capacity mean there is a limit to production.

If premises one and two are correct, then there is a disconnect between purchaser and producer of epic proportions. Unlimited purchasing power + limited production = inflation and, by definition, shortages. The result would be a run on production to spend the excess credits and get the available output before others do, leaving them with useless credits.

Now, given that we cannot simply decide that there is unlimited production capacity over the given timeframe, provision A of Premise 1 has to be rejected. There has to be a limit on purchasing power because you cannot purchase more than you can produce. This is, in essence, scarcity. However, B and C leave two strong incentives to consume.

Premise Three: in order for there to be no market created by the condition above, we have to assume that people will be happy, materially, with whatever level of consumption that number of credits provides.

This is a huge risk. It is further exacerbated by the premise that people will value a good or service primarily for its energy cost. While the cost of a good or service in energy credits will mimmic the current cost of a good or service in dollars (i.e. energy-intensive purchases will be "expensive" while less energy-intensive purchases will be "cheap"), it ignores the fact that many products and services are demanded for non-price-related criteria. If "price" is tied solely to energy cost, then there is no accounting for non-price-related demand.

Say for instance I want to buy a home in certain location of town. Currently, if there is high demand for that location I will pay a lot; if there is less demand for that location I will pay less. Technocracy says demand for that location does not matter: the price of the home is tied strictly to the cost of the energy that went into it. The result would be intense competition for the home - and for every other good that is similarly valued for criteria other than price - because price no longer matters. And what would happen then? Well, one of two things:

If the good could be produced, then demand would be met. But due to limited total production capacity, other goods could not be produced (i.e. opportunity cost). Hence, people may very well create a shortage of necessary goods if they spent all their energy credits and therefore used up production capacity on non-necessary goods and services. In the current market-based system, such a spike in demand would drive up price, forcing people to purchase something else of less cost, saving them money. That protection is eliminated in technocracy.

If the good could not be produced at a level to meet demand, then scarcity results. There is now a black market for the good where people will trade whatever they can to get the good they want that is no longer available at the People&#39;s Glorious Distribution Center (PGDC). The PGDC would turn into a ticket box office: People would line up for the product, buy it until it&#39;s gone, and then turn around and barter it for who-knows-what.

Premise Four: is the reliance on standardization. This creates a disconnect between production and consumer&#39;s demand for variety. It creates two competing interests: the efficiency-seeking technocrats who control the technology embedded in the means of production, and the consumer-driven suppliers who seek to meet demand. In capitalism, the profit motive unites these two competing interests: you profit more if you meet demand while being efficient. If a technocrat&#39;s incentive is to standardize and maximize efficiency, he is less interested in the variety required to meet demand and vice versa for the suppliers. With no profit motive to unite the two, what happens?

Enjoy.
You are right in Premise nr 1. That is why I have stated that we need aware consumers. Eventually, I guess, people would not try to make consumption and material items the distinctive factor between them, but rather other qualities. But your reasoning to go there is faulty, because technocrats do not view abundance or scarcity as absolutes, but rather as relative factors. And that is premise nr 2.
For a technate to work, it must have enough resource diversity within it&#39;s operational area and enough energy available to operate it, making it self-sufficient.

Thus premise three. Urbanates are designed to give everyone the same access to for example gardens, lakes, or other things. Competition for apartments is not a problem, and even though people may try, it will be non-existent. First to the windmill...

Thus premise four. Remember that those who produce stuff are also consumers. It will be like OS. The standardisation undertaken is a modular standardisation of micro-parts, so that all electronic gear, structures and machines would be able to be changed and repaired instantly.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 23, 2007 03:44 am--> (Serpent &#064; January 23, 2007 03:44 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:12 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 12:43 pm
People will decide what is going to be produced, the personnel of the technate decides how it is going to be produced.

Personally, I do not understand the free-way fixation. I could understand that it is viewed as a freedom enhancer by a lot of Americans though, even though the whole culture of bilism is a giant mis-allocation of resources and energy inefficient [personally I do not have a driver&#39;s license since a car in Sweden is the greatest net loss economically an individual could make].

The reconstruction of infrastructure would be the most controversial part, but we cannot free energy resources to enhance life standard with the current energy inefficient solutions on our infrastructure [the current infrastructure is spurred by economic growth rather than energy-efficiency in mind].

Of course, these reforms need to be anchored in the will of the population, but it would become a great deal of stress.

What is the standard for determining if something is "efficient" in a technate?
Energy investment in a given product in relation to the durability and quality of the product, as well as employed load factors utilised in production. [/b]
It is the objective of all rational economic systems to produce the greatest quanity they can, using the fewest resources, having the smallest cost. Energy is definitely a cost in production, but it is not the only cost.

What tells the technocrats they have an "efficient" production?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:42 am
1. The total production capacity would be divided into equal shares on the number of individuals living inside the operational area. The share one single individual receives is called an "energy quota", in an electronic card called "the energy certifikate", and the units are called "energy credits".

2. Energy credits could not be saved over one consumption cycle. You could not give them away or trade with another individual using them. They cease to exist when used. They could only be used in relation to the technate.

3. When the consumers use their energy credits, the technate adapts it&#39;s production after their preferences which they have revealed by their usage of the energy certifikate.

Thus, the technate is not employing a market system, but a distributionist system.
It seems you are looking at the problem of production at the final stage of production, for example, when the consumer goes to buy a living room set, or hooks for picture frames.

But what about the producer? The folks producing living room stuff need access to wood, fabric, machinery, uniforms, cleaning supplies ect ect. If all of their production is part of the pot which goes to consumers, how do they get the products they need?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:14 pm
i always wondered what "amount of energy spent" in production has to do with the percieved value or utility of a good or service.

for example, i could put hundreds of man hours into making a car, where as an assembly line could do it in a fraction of the time with greater quality and precision.
I think it has to do with how much electricity and power is used in production (how much oil, coal, natural gas ect) as opposed to how much time is placed in production. It seems like a way around the labor theory of value. But I don&#39;t think it gets very far.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23, 2007 09:51 pm

Hope you enjoy my answers.
I did, but rather than waste time going through them one by one, I will simply say this: they all depend on everyone thinking just like you and are therefore unrealistic.

[t_wolves_fan]

You are right in Premise nr 1. That is why I have stated that we need aware consumers.

This is the problem. Consumers can be made "aware" of a product&#39;s energy cost but it&#39;s highly improbable that you&#39;re going to force a dramatic shift in attitude where they no longer value things for other reasons.

This is why I favor pigovian taxes over your proposal. We can reasonably estimate a product&#39;s effect on the environment and tax it for that effect. We can levy this tax on raw materials so that producers have to pass the environmental cost on to consumers, forcing them to take the environmental/energy cost into account. But even when we do that, we can&#39;t ensure that the consumer won&#39;t value the product or service for other reasons; they may want the product so much for whatever reason that they willingly pay a higher price which includes the pigovian tax.

Where this differs from your system is that demand still factors into the price, whereas your system fails to account for demand in the price, ensuring a shortage of that good because the customer has no conception of how much in demand the good is. If a good is highly demanded, its price never goes up and people consume it until it&#39;s gone.

I know your answer will be "we&#39;ll be so efficient we&#39;ll never run out". This is fantasy because continued high demand will use up the resource. Imagine it&#39;s some kind of fish, for instance. People love sockeye salmon. Whatever the energy cost is to catch the fish, say it&#39;s 5 energy credits, will never rise no matter how few salmon remain. So people keep eating salmon because they like it and it&#39;s cheap - the price never goes up. Next thing you know, you&#39;re out of salmon. A market system says that as salmon get more rare, the price will go up and demand will fall, but you&#39;re eliminating that control. Basically any product will conceivably run into the same problem, because eventually you&#39;re going to run out of a raw material or component part.



Eventually, I guess, people would not try to make consumption and material items the distinctive factor between them, but rather other qualities.

Do you agree that you would have to achieve this societal shift before your system is even slightly practical?


For a technate to work, it must have enough resource diversity within it&#39;s operational area and enough energy available to operate it, making it self-sufficient.

That is autarky and autarky does not work. There is no region or even nation on the planet that has every raw material or can produce every food that every person wants. Living in the Pacific Northwest, I do not have the ability to grow oranges. Why build some fancy system here that grows oranges at a higher cost in resources when I can import oranges from California or Florida for less? Is that efficient? What about raw materials? We in the pacific northwest do not have certain minerals, so do we go without the products that require those minerals? The northeast has no oil, do they go without products that have no oil? You will probably answer that we can create synthetic oils. What if it takes 5 units of energy to create a synthetic and 4 units to import the real deal? Is that efficient?


Thus premise three. Urbanates are designed to give everyone the same access to for example gardens, lakes, or other things. Competition for apartments is not a problem, and even though people may try, it will be non-existent. First to the windmill...

You&#39;re going to have to explain this in more detail. How do you guarantee everyone the same access to living along a lake or having a desirable view of the mountains?

[Dimentio]

No, my answer is of course that it would be irrational to do it. The energy quota does not an upper limit of consumption, which is your share of the quota. So even though you will have a high standard of life, you will still be able to consume.

The problem with North American technocrats is that they like to be vague, especially according to the definition of scarcity and abundance.

A technate must be of a very large, almost continental size. Otherwise, it will be forced to barter.

Nowadays, food like oranges could be made growing everywhere, at a slightly higher energy cost.

Within urbanates, we could have a territorial squaring which is putting every zone near a park zone or a lake zone.

As for mountains, they could be seen in the horizon.

If you live in a single-dwelling unit, you could place it almost everywhere you would like (you do not have to own the land etc).

[t_wolves_fan]

No, my answer is of course that it would be irrational to do it. The energy quota does not an upper limit of consumption, which is your share of the quota. So even though you will have a high standard of life, you will still be able to consume.

Um, what? A quota of energy consumption is not a limit? You&#39;re going to have to rephrase because that makes no sense - a quota is by defintion a limit.


A technate must be of a very large, almost continental size. Otherwise, it will be forced to barter.

Continental-sized countries like the United States, Russia and China still import those materials they cannot generate on their own.

Japan imports almost all of its raw materials and food. What happens to Japan?


Nowadays, food like oranges could be made growing everywhere, at a slightly higher energy cost.

That&#39;s not efficient. Spending more energy to grow oranges in Sweden means less energy to produce something else.


Within urbanates, we could have a territorial squaring which is putting every zone near a park zone or a lake zone.

As for mountains, they could be seen in the horizon.

What do you intend to do, build new lakes and mountains in each zone?


If you live in a single-dwelling unit, you could place it almost everywhere you would like (you do not have to own the land etc).

But when I place it that means someone else cannot place it there, correct? Or is it going to be like Legos where they can just build their house on top of mine without my having any say in it?

You do understand the difficulties of such an arrangement, yes?

[Dimentio]

Hahaha... yes, it does have limit. What I meant to say is that it is not limitless.

What we in Europe are focusing on is a continental technate from Vladivostok to Iceland. There is a risk that some areas of the globe never would be able to reach a full technate.

No, no one would put their house above yours. And yes, when you got that sweetspot, no one else would get it before you moves. First to the windmill...

About production factors: what you assume is that we have a scarcity which forces us to just focus on one or a few kind of production systems. That is indeed not the case, we could theoretically generate very much energy.

[MrDoom]

A technate must be of a very large, almost continental size. Otherwise, it will be forced to barter.

Continental-sized countries like the United States, Russia and China still import those materials they cannot generate on their own.

And nations alone cannot operate a technate; notably because they are divided by political boundries and not economic.

A North American technate at the minimum would require the US and Canda combined, for the US&#39;s industry, and Canada&#39;s rarer resources and agriculture. Mexico, Central America, and some of the Pacific Islands would be beneficial but not critical.

If a nation cannot have any reasonable level of self-sufficiency, then it cannot operate a technate independently.


Japan imports almost all of its raw materials and food. What happens to Japan?
I can&#39;t speak for an Asian technate, but Japan could not operate an independant technate, obviously, for the reasons stated above.




If you live in a single-dwelling unit, you could place it almost everywhere you would like (you do not have to own the land etc).

But when I place it that means someone else cannot place it there, correct? Or is it going to be like Legos where they can just build their house on top of mine without my having any say in it?

Modular buildings are certainly going to be the de facto standard in building construction (or should I say, manufacture).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:41 am
Hahaha... yes, it does have limit. What I meant to say is that it is not limitless.

What we in Europe are focusing on is a continental technate from Vladivostok to Iceland. There is a risk that some areas of the globe never would be able to reach a full technate.

No, no one would put their house above yours. And yes, when you got that sweetspot, no one else would get it before you moves. First to the windmill...

About production factors: what you assume is that we have a scarcity which forces us to just focus on one or a few kind of production systems. That is indeed not the case, we could theoretically generate very much energy.

Certainly one could theoretically generate much more energy. But in doing so, you need to make choices. Do you use raw materials that would have been used to make windows, and turn them into solar panels instead? Do you
dig for coal in a certain mountain, or deploy those workers to growing corn?
Obviously the workers making solar panels and digging for coal cannot be making windows or growing food at the same time.

Scarcity exists, even for a technate. Even a technate cannot do everything at once. Because of scarcity.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm
And nations alone cannot operate a technate; notably because they are divided by political boundries and not economic.

A North American technate at the minimum would require the US and Canda combined, for the US&#39;s industry, and Canada&#39;s rarer resources and agriculture. Mexico, Central America, and some of the Pacific Islands would be beneficial but not critical.


Yet even all those landmasses put together do not have everything to make everything we want and consume at present.

So what happens? Do we construct artifical olive tree farms for our olive oil that use more energy to produce an ounce of olive oil than we would have used to import it from Italy? I thought our goal was efficiency, now we&#39;re using resources we wouldn&#39;t have had to otherwise use to get the same product we had before.

Explain, if you will, how that makes any sense whatsoever.


If a nation cannot have any reasonable level of self-sufficiency, then it cannot operate a technate independently.

I can&#39;t speak for an Asian technate, but Japan could not operate an independant technate, obviously, for the reasons stated above.


So what happens?

Furthermore, how do you address ethnicity and nationalism when combining nations together if the nationalities do not want to cooperate? Forced re-education? Gulags?


Modular buildings are certainly going to be the de facto standard in building construction (or should I say, manufacture).

Awesome, high rises and trailer parks for everyone.

Sign me up man, this fantasy sounds totally rad.

:lol:

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:44 pm
And nations alone cannot operate a technate; notably because they are divided by political boundries and not economic.

A North American technate at the minimum would require the US and Canda combined, for the US&#39;s industry, and Canada&#39;s rarer resources and agriculture. Mexico, Central America, and some of the Pacific Islands would be beneficial but not critical.


Yet even all those landmasses put together do not have everything to make everything we want and consume at present.

True. What few materials that a high-energy society needs that exist that have to be imported would have to be barted for, obviously.



If a nation cannot have any reasonable level of self-sufficiency, then it cannot operate a technate independently.

I can&#39;t speak for an Asian technate, but Japan could not operate an independant technate, obviously, for the reasons stated above.


So what happens?

Japan would have to be part of a larger landmass composing a technate. As I said, however, I cannot speak for an Asian technocratic movement. The basic principle remains, however.


Furthermore, how do you address ethnicity and nationalism when combining nations together if the nationalities do not want to cooperate? Forced re-education? Gulags?

I think that by the time the price system breaks down that would be fairly inconsequential.

If a group of people do not want to cooperate they do not have to be part of the technate; they can emmigrate, or in a worse-case snenario, the technate would not be implemented until some change occurred. A technocracy does not deal in forced reeducation or gulags, as that is control over people rather than technology.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected]anuary 24, 2007 04:04 pm
True. What few materials that a high-energy society needs that exist that have to be imported would have to be barted for, obviously.


You didn&#39;t answer the main question: why not barter for all the other things that technates cannot provide themselves if it&#39;s more efficient? Like olives, oranges, uranium, oil, etc. etc. etc.




I think that by the time the price system breaks down that would be fairly inconsequential.

So obviously this isn&#39;t gonna happen until sometime around the day the Sun goes red supergiant, then.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:04 pm
True. What few materials that a high-energy society needs that exist that have to be imported would have to be barted for, obviously.


You didn&#39;t answer the main question: why not barter for all the other things that technates cannot provide themselves if it&#39;s more efficient? Like olives, oranges, uranium, oil, etc. etc. etc.

You&#39;re just restating the question. I said that resources the technate cannot itself extract from its area would have to be imported.

North America is unique in that it contains 20% of the world&#39;s landmass, and more than its share in resources.




I think that by the time the price system breaks down that would be fairly inconsequential.

So obviously this isn&#39;t gonna happen until sometime around the day the Sun goes red supergiant, then.

If the FDR&#39;s of the world keep sticking bandaids on a system whose heart was ripped out in &#39;29, it will be. Not very functional by the time of nova, however, I can assure you.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by ZX3+January 24, 2007 09:01 am--> (ZX3 @ January 24, 2007 09:01 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 04:14 pm
i always wondered what "amount of energy spent" in production has to do with the percieved value or utility of a good or service.

for example, i could put hundreds of man hours into making a car, where as an assembly line could do it in a fraction of the time with greater quality and precision.
I think it has to do with how much electricity and power is used in production (how much oil, coal, natural gas ect) as opposed to how much time is placed in production. It seems like a way around the labor theory of value. But I don&#39;t think it gets very far. [/b]
but still, factories use electricity and general energy much more effeciently than an individual craftsman, which is why they are able to turn profits much more easily in capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 24, 2007 03:37 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 24, 2007 03:37 pm)
apathy [email protected] 23, 2007 09:51 pm

Hope you enjoy my answers.
I did, but rather than waste time going through them one by one, I will simply say this: they all depend on everyone thinking just like you and are therefore unrealistic. [/b]
Haha. So my saying that people can eat eggs or use GM if they want means that everyone thinks like me? The whole point is that it doesn&#39;t matter if people don&#39;t think like me, so long as they aren&#39;t hurting others, it doesn&#39;t matter.

Trains are obviously better then free ways and cars, and saying that people will use a reduced amount of energy will be an effect of the society where people don&#39;t mind sharing such things as cars and washing machines.

[Tungsten]

apathy maybe

The technocrats are not parents forcing someone not to do something which is bad for them, the revolution will have overthrown the paternalistic government, people will not want another one.
Can you spot the contradiction between the quote above and the quote below?

Cars. Cars are not a personal good, thus there don&#39;t need to be that many. Those that are produced would have airbags. Resources would also be put into more push bikes and mass public transport.
At who&#39;s command? Don&#39;t we get say in any of this? I don&#39;t want to go to work on public transport, nor would anyone else I know out of choice.

Energy. People would not be using shit loads of energy in my wonderful eco-anarchy. Rather they would be using technology designed to use low amounts of energy, they would be sharing goods such as cars and washing machines (reducing demand for energy and resources), places would be built with good amounts of insulation (reducing demand for energy) and people would just generally turn of their lights when not using them. Thus not a problem.
And what happens when they devite from this grand plan? Your claims don&#39;t add up. You say we&#39;ll be free to do what we want, providing we don&#39;t harm anyone else, yet here you are telling us what people will and will not be doing.

[Tungsten]

ZX3

Scarcity exists, even for a technate. Even a technate cannot do everything at once. Because of scarcity.
Of course not. The only way scarcity could not exist is if there were an infinite supply of products, which is impossible due to limited resources. Which is why all this talk of "scarcity trading" is guff.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:07 pm
apathy maybe

The technocrats are not parents forcing someone not to do something which is bad for them, the revolution will have overthrown the paternalistic government, people will not want another one.
Can you spot the contradiction between the quote above and the quote below?

Cars. Cars are not a personal good, thus there don&#39;t need to be that many. Those that are produced would have airbags. Resources would also be put into more push bikes and mass public transport.
At who&#39;s command? Don&#39;t we get say in any of this? I don&#39;t want to go to work on public transport, nor would anyone else I know out of choice.

Energy. People would not be using shit loads of energy in my wonderful eco-anarchy. Rather they would be using technology designed to use low amounts of energy, they would be sharing goods such as cars and washing machines (reducing demand for energy and resources), places would be built with good amounts of insulation (reducing demand for energy) and people would just generally turn of their lights when not using them. Thus not a problem.
And what happens when they devite from this grand plan? Your claims don&#39;t add up. You say we&#39;ll be free to do what we want, providing we don&#39;t harm anyone else, yet here you are telling us what people will and will not be doing.
So because you are an individualist prick who doesn&#39;t like people, you can get to work in a car. Happy now?

We aren&#39;t saying that you have to use public transport, you can make your own car if you want. You can build your own free way too (but don&#39;t be building it on land that is being used now). No one is stopping you. But the people who make such things for general consumption will sort of assume that people will be happy to use public transport. Any freaks like you can build their own cars.

If individuals want to be anti-social and use shit loads of energy with out getting it accounted for, they can. But they shouldn&#39;t expect to be invited to many parties.


I am talking generally about the society that I think would be pretty good. But hey, you don&#39;t have to like it.

[Publius]

With all the harm that human intervention in the environment has done I feel it&#39;s only reasonable to oppose any more of it.

If you opposed &#39;any more&#39; &#39;human intervention&#39; in the &#39;environment&#39;, you would limit humanity to inevitable death.

I&#39;m unsure which trait of the far Left this better represents: ignorance or perniciousness.

Probably both.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+January 24, 2007 10:02 pm--> (colonelguppy @ January 24, 2007 10:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:01 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 04:14 pm
i always wondered what "amount of energy spent" in production has to do with the percieved value or utility of a good or service.

for example, i could put hundreds of man hours into making a car, where as an assembly line could do it in a fraction of the time with greater quality and precision.
I think it has to do with how much electricity and power is used in production (how much oil, coal, natural gas ect) as opposed to how much time is placed in production. It seems like a way around the labor theory of value. But I don&#39;t think it gets very far.
but still, factories use electricity and general energy much more effeciently than an individual craftsman, which is why they are able to turn profits much more easily in capitalism. [/b]
Exactly. And that is why technocracy&#39;s promises of reduced labor hours and increased prosperity holds water. Our goal is to reduce the time an individual needs to work to it&#39;s absolute optimal minimum.

The final goal is a sort of society where eveyone belongs to some kind of aristocracy and machines do all manual labor.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The technocrats of Technoland determine that eggs are unhealthy and lead to too much cholesterol
If memory serves me right, there is cholesterol in eggs, but it doesn&#39;t have much of an impact on human cholesterol.

[Dimentio]

I could actually recommend everyone who have questions to ask them to our people on the Network of European Technocrats&#39; website (http://technocracyeurope.eu). Because it seems like a lot of people here needs to learn the basic resource theory of the technocratic design.

[t_wolves_fan]

So because you are an individualist prick who doesn&#39;t like people, you can get to work in a car. Happy now?

What does wanting to drive a car yourself have to do with not liking people? Me, I like to be able to listen to the radio, have a spot for my coffee, have plenty of leg and elbow room, and most importantly get to where I want to go on my own schedule. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking other people.

Who are you to tell me I am wrong?


We aren&#39;t saying that you have to use public transport, you can make your own car if you want. You can build your own free way too (but don&#39;t be building it on land that is being used now). No one is stopping you.

Would other people get to use the freeway? After all, theoretically nobody owns anything, so I could not stop people from using my freeway nor could anyone stop me from running a freeway through their...I mean our...living room.


If individuals want to be anti-social and use shit loads of energy with out getting it accounted for, they can. But they shouldn&#39;t expect to be invited to many parties.

What about places like the United States were 95% of people commute in cars? Won&#39;t it be the other way around?

Or do you just assume, like so many communists do, that a fairy will sprinkle his magic dust upon the earth and everyone will instantly think like you do?

[Dimentio]

Well, people could still be egoists of course, but I guess that it is possible to obtain 51% support for the decrease of unhealthy lifestyles. Just look at California today.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well, people could still be egoists of course,

Replace "could still be" with "are still going to be".


but I guess that it is possible to obtain 51% support for the decrease of unhealthy lifestyles. Just look at California today.

But should they? Should 51% of your neighbors get to decide that you may no longer enjoy your favorite dessert because they think it&#39;s in your best interests?

[Dimentio]

That is actually how society works today in a lot. Just look at the ban of smoking in pubs in Great Britain and parts of Germany. Or the suicidal Swedish fuel taxes for that matter. Another example is Arnold&#39;s anti-fuel reforms in California.

In a technate, we would not put a punishment on consumers, we will simply redesign the infrastructure of society to make inefficient-on-a-gross-scale solutions impossible. :)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:50 pm
That is actually how society works today in a lot. Just look at the ban of smoking in pubs in Great Britain and parts of Germany. Or the suicidal Swedish fuel taxes for that matter. Another example is Arnold&#39;s anti-fuel reforms in California.

In a technate, we would not put a punishment on consumers, we will simply redesign the infrastructure of society to make inefficient-on-a-gross-scale solutions impossible. :)
The problem is with the energy accounting and how it disconnects price from demand, not to mention the Jetsons-like fantasies about the abilities of technology.

But I&#39;m done beating the dead horse.

Yes, unfortunately political decisions are made all the time by interest groups (i.e. busy bodies) who go way past the line between valid public policy and personal, individual choices. Again this is why I prefer pigovian taxes.

What do you think about pigovian taxes?

[Dimentio]

We are both pro-ecology and pro-people, that is why we do not want to punish individuals by making them pay more because of bad infrastructural solutions.

My opinion on Pigovian taxes is that they are insufficient to achieve a sustainable society and benefits a parasite class of environmentalist law-makers [I know of a case when a flower costed a company 40.000 SEK [7.500&#036;] a day]. Pigovian taxes are generally put over the workers, who are seen as the main reason the society destroys environment, i.e, it individualises what is the reason of the allocation of the infrastructure.

It may work in making companies react, but it won&#39;t decrease the usage of footprints or create a sustainable society.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 25, 2007 07:27 am--> (Serpent @ January 25, 2007 07:27 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:02 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:01 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 04:14 pm
i always wondered what "amount of energy spent" in production has to do with the percieved value or utility of a good or service.

for example, i could put hundreds of man hours into making a car, where as an assembly line could do it in a fraction of the time with greater quality and precision.
I think it has to do with how much electricity and power is used in production (how much oil, coal, natural gas ect) as opposed to how much time is placed in production. It seems like a way around the labor theory of value. But I don&#39;t think it gets very far.
but still, factories use electricity and general energy much more effeciently than an individual craftsman, which is why they are able to turn profits much more easily in capitalism.
Exactly. And that is why technocracy&#39;s promises of reduced labor hours and increased prosperity holds water. Our goal is to reduce the time an individual needs to work to it&#39;s absolute optimal minimum.

The final goal is a sort of society where eveyone belongs to some kind of aristocracy and machines do all manual labor. [/b]
no my point was that the amount of energy expenditure in production doesn&#39;t necessarrily correlate with a quality or desirbale product.

[Dimentio]

No, but with the availability. It is cheaper to use energy and machines than people in production.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+January 24, 2007 05:02 pm--> (colonelguppy @ January 24, 2007 05:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:01 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 04:14 pm
i always wondered what "amount of energy spent" in production has to do with the percieved value or utility of a good or service.

for example, i could put hundreds of man hours into making a car, where as an assembly line could do it in a fraction of the time with greater quality and precision.
I think it has to do with how much electricity and power is used in production (how much oil, coal, natural gas ect) as opposed to how much time is placed in production. It seems like a way around the labor theory of value. But I don&#39;t think it gets very far.
but still, factories use electricity and general energy much more effeciently than an individual craftsman, which is why they are able to turn profits much more easily in capitalism. [/b]
Right. But the assumption is that energy costs are going to be constant, which is untrue.

[Dimentio]

Huh? When have we ever made such claims? Energy production is not a constant according to technocrats, but actually a process where our ability to use energy constantly becomes better. But non-renewable resources is a problem.

http://www.technocracyeurope.eu

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:36 am
No, but with the availability. It is cheaper to use energy and machines than people in production.
but what does any of that have to do with the general desirability or usefulness or quality of a product?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+January 26, 2007 09:55 pm--> (colonelguppy @ January 26, 2007 09:55 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2007 05:36 am
No, but with the availability. It is cheaper to use energy and machines than people in production.
but what does any of that have to do with the general desirability or usefulness or quality of a product? [/b]
Nothing. That is why we still need quality checks and consumer influence. :)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 26, 2007 05:08 pm--> (Serpent &#064; January 26, 2007 05:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:55 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 05:36 am
No, but with the availability. It is cheaper to use energy and machines than people in production.
but what does any of that have to do with the general desirability or usefulness or quality of a product?
Nothing. That is why we still need quality checks and consumer influence. :) [/b]
ok then what is the point of energy accounting? i thought this is what was supposed to replace the price system.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+January 27, 2007 01:23 am--> (colonelguppy @ January 27, 2007 01:23 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:08 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:55 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 05:36 am
No, but with the availability. It is cheaper to use energy and machines than people in production.
but what does any of that have to do with the general desirability or usefulness or quality of a product?
Nothing. That is why we still need quality checks and consumer influence. :)
ok then what is the point of energy accounting? i thought this is what was supposed to replace the price system. [/b]
The point of energy accounting is to balance consumption and production on a macro-scale, to prevent waste and artificial scarcity to appear.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 27, 2007 08:18 am--> (Serpent @ January 27, 2007 08:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:23 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:08 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:55 pm

[email protected] 26, 2007 05:36 am
No, but with the availability. It is cheaper to use energy and machines than people in production.
but what does any of that have to do with the general desirability or usefulness or quality of a product?
Nothing. That is why we still need quality checks and consumer influence. :)
ok then what is the point of energy accounting? i thought this is what was supposed to replace the price system.
The point of energy accounting is to balance consumption and production on a macro-scale, to prevent waste and artificial scarcity to appear. [/b]
so yeah, replace the price system. now how is energy used in production related to the desirablility of a product or service, thus acting as a way to balance the system?

[red team]

now how is energy used in production related to the desirablility of a product or service

How is money?

If I work twice as long should I end up with twice as much material? No, because matter and energy are finite and puny me with my human muscles working 24 hours a day isn&#39;t going to change that.

The desirability of a product has nothing to do with the physical cost incurred in making it unless you&#39;re an idiot who thinks an empty gas tank in your car can somehow become full by you "working" to produce more gas which makes about as much sense as gas magically appearing back in the gas station after it&#39;s been burned in your engine.

Demand can be measured through something called quantity sold. Quantity means counting: 1...2...3... It&#39;s the basic concept numeracy which is not the same as numerology which economists practice which explains why mainstream economists never get anything right and have just about the same track record as fortune tellers.

[wtfm8lol]

If I work twice as long should I end up with twice as much material? No, because matter and energy are finite and puny me with my human muscles working 24 hours a day isn&#39;t going to change that.

the problem is that if you work 1/100 the amount someone else does, you still get just as much, so you&#39;re gambling that people are going to willingly work enough to keep society running well even though they don&#39;t see the immediate benefit of their hard labor.


The desirability of a product has nothing to do with the physical cost incurred in making it

sure it does. if some product is in high demand, technology is put into its production to make it more efficient, lowering the cost of production per unit, whereas if the product is in extremely low demand, existing machines that are less efficient at creating the product will be used and it will cost more to create each one. for example, if a company wanted to produce 100 of a certain product, they wouldn&#39;t invest in new technology so they could be made efficiently, so each would cost more per unit. however, if they planned to make 1,000,000, they be more likely to invest in the new technology, so each would cost less to make.

[red team]

the problem is that if you work 1/100 the amount someone else does, you still get just as much, so you&#39;re gambling that people are going to willingly work enough to keep society running well even though they don&#39;t see the immediate benefit of their hard labor.

Which is really a scarcity of desirable time which every worker has. I&#39;m not opposing some sort of compensatory system of bonuses for people still needed for engaging in work they rather not be doing as measured by the intensity of work (power) with the duration spent in doing it (time) which are physically measureable quantities, but please explain to me how any duration of time in labour would increase the finite material limits of what we have to work with unless you think that we (the majority of the industrial world) still work with manual hand tools in making the bulk of production.


if some product is in high demand

How does it get that way? How do you measure this "demand"?

I guess it&#39;s back to the basics of counting for you. 1...2...3...

It&#39;s called quantity. It&#39;s a good basic concept to learn on your road to mastering counting.


technology is put into its production to make it more efficient

Which is paid with from the feedback in consumer purchase quantity.

Unless you want engage in the Capitalist rip-off game called price speculation. For that to happen, physical costs are divorced from consumer purchasing price that way you can engage in the fun and exciting game of commodity betting much like sports betting, but with the stakes being houses and jobs. Which isn&#39;t really all that fun and exciting depending on your class position in the money system pecking order.


if the product is in extremely low demand, existing machines that are less efficient at creating the product will be used and it will cost more to create each one

Which may not make much sense in terms of raw material consumption and hence the real material cost in making something with old machinery might be higher than with better machinery, but who cares if energy is wasted in old inefficient, polluting machinery? That&#39;s consumer quality for you.


however, if they planned to make 1,000,000, they be more likely to invest in the new technology, so each would cost less to make

And that decision to improve efficiency and hence lower costs and improve quality for consumers is based on what? Is it because wealthy shareholders invests in the company so the company is indebted to making the item it produces beneficial in terms of the bottom line returned to the investors or is it because of purchases of the product by consumers driving the company to produce in relation to consumer demands for quality and utility for the item it makes. If you believe the latter then I have a carton of cancer sticks to sell you.

The property of money in which it could be saved and hoarded means the people who are the best hoarders gains an advantage in setting production priorities in a system that depends on the trading of money for debts. Once you have that then you can never say that your system is truly driven by consumer demand as it has already been fully distorted by the demand for profits in return for investment made by the wealthy investor class.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 28, 2007 09:17 pm

now how is energy used in production related to the desirablility of a product or service

How is money?

If I work twice as long should I end up with twice as much material? No, because matter and energy are finite and puny me with my human muscles working 24 hours a day isn&#39;t going to change that.

The desirability of a product has nothing to do with the physical cost incurred in making it unless you&#39;re an idiot who thinks an empty gas tank in your car can somehow become full by you "working" to produce more gas which makes about as much sense as gas magically appearing back in the gas station after it&#39;s been burned in your engine.

Demand can be measured through something called quantity sold. Quantity means counting: 1...2...3... It&#39;s the basic concept numeracy which is not the same as numerology which economists practice which explains why mainstream economists never get anything right and have just about the same track record as fortune tellers.
people are willing to pay more money for a more desirable or useful product.

[wtfm8lol]

I&#39;m not opposing some sort of compensatory system of bonuses for people still needed for engaging in work they rather not be doing as measured by the intensity of work (power) with the duration spent in doing it (time) which are physically measureable quantities

ok, but who is the one deciding which jobs people don&#39;t want to do and therefore deserve these bonuses? In what form do these bonuses come? Does one undesirable job get more bonuses than another undesirable job? If so, who decides that and how do they decide that?


How does it get that way? How do you measure this "demand"?

you measure demand based on a plot of units purchased versus price. that&#39;s fairly simple economics. it gets that way for any number of reasons: personal taste, purchasing power of the intended consumer base, price of competing items, cost of things related to the item, etc.. And of course, the demand of a certain item can be estimated fairly accurately prior to release by a knowledgeable sales team using data regarding consumer response to advertisements and that sort of thing.


Which is paid with from the feedback in consumer purchase quantity.

ok..not necessarily..it could be paid for using prior wealth created by the manufacturing company.


in the fun and exciting game of commodity betting much like sports betting, but with the stakes being houses and jobs. Which isn&#39;t really all that fun and exciting depending on your class position in the money system pecking order.

the only people who can lose money on this are the capitalists, and they only put in as much money as they&#39;re willing to lose. if they bet all of their money and lose their houses, it&#39;s their own fault. they entered the deal knowing the risks. at most, the workers lose their jobs. big fucking deal. they don&#39;t lose any money, they just don&#39;t gain any more until they find a new job.


but who cares if energy is wasted in old inefficient, polluting machinery? That&#39;s consumer quality for you.

who the fuck said anything about that? i was suggesting that maybe the old machines can put together the majority of the product, but require someone to finish putting it together, so it costs more in human labor.


And that decision to improve efficiency and hence lower costs and improve quality for consumers is based on what? Is it because wealthy shareholders invests in the company so the company is indebted to making the item it produces beneficial in terms of the bottom line returned to the investors or is it because of purchases of the product by consumers driving the company to produce in relation to consumer demands for quality and utility for the item it makes. If you believe the latter then I have a carton of cancer sticks to sell you.

I&#39;d say its a bit of both, and depends largely on the industry.


The property of money in which it could be saved and hoarded means the people who are the best hoarders gains an advantage in setting production priorities in a system that depends on the trading of money for debts. Once you have that then you can never say that your system is truly driven by consumer demand as it has already been fully distorted by the demand for profits in return for investment made by the wealthy investor class.

i can&#39;t even make sense of your argument..you honestly don&#39;t think that capitalism is driven by demand?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:25 pm

The property of money in which it could be saved and hoarded means the people who are the best hoarders gains an advantage in setting production priorities in a system that depends on the trading of money for debts. Once you have that then you can never say that your system is truly driven by consumer demand as it has already been fully distorted by the demand for profits in return for investment made by the wealthy investor class.


That goes into the RevLeft hall of fame.

Let me get this straight:

The best way to make money is to...save it. And the best way to save money is to...invest it. And people who invest create products and services of their choice...and do not take the considerations of the consumer into account. Basically, if they create it and sell it, people have to buy it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_failures)

Nobody else can, uh, create what people actually want and make any money.

:wacko:

[Dimentio]

Of course, there must be a consumer interest, and that is the only good aspect of the market system. The bad aspects of the market system is that everyone is indirectly forced to serve everyone else and sell their labor on a market, even though we may have more resources than we are able to consume.

[wtfm8lol]

The bad aspects of the market system is that everyone is indirectly forced to serve everyone else and sell their labor on a market

no one is required to serve anyone else. if someone wants to buy some land and live off of that land without interacting with the market, they&#39;re able to do that. they will not have modern technology, but then it isn&#39;t as if it&#39;s anyone&#39;s responsibility to give someone else technology.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:43 pm
The bad aspects of the market system is that everyone is indirectly forced to serve everyone else and sell their labor on a market, even though we may have more resources than we are able to consume.
Uh, isn&#39;t this the case in socialism/communism too?

Everyone has to work for the good of society,

and even the commies are admitting you&#39;d pretty much have to work in whatever job society deems necessary.

We&#39;ll have more resources than we can consume either way.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:08 pm

The bad aspects of the market system is that everyone is indirectly forced to serve everyone else and sell their labor on a market

no one is required to serve anyone else. if someone wants to buy some land and live off of that land without interacting with the market, they&#39;re able to do that. they will not have modern technology, but then it isn&#39;t as if it&#39;s anyone&#39;s responsibility to give someone else technology.

:lol: But, the problem is the people with the money to buy land are the people that makes the decisions for investment including the decision to invest in paying the wages for labour. In all likelihood the price of land (and housing) in locations where services using modern technology are available are priced out of reach because the wealthy elite investor class wants those prime locations for themselves. And the whole reason they are "elite" is because they serve the social function of investing for further personal gain of course which inevitably means that on the other side of the equation for the people who work to provide these modern technology based services, they will be perpetually poor relative to the amount of money (debt tokens) hoarded by the investors.

Dont take my word for it.
You have old wood-frame houses lit by candles in 21st century America. What an absolute embarassment to human dignity and progress:

Deadly house fire in Petersburg, Virginia: the human cost of social inequality (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/pete-f01.shtml)

But you can also be certain that the upper management of some of the big corporations moving into the area live in luxury dwellings.

I suppose it is a pretty good game of real-life monopoly, but you see being the intelligent person that I am, if forced to play this game I would rather be one of the player of this game than one of the pieces of the game.

But, there are alternatives to playing of course:

1. You can start over with a new game with new rules after the inevitable collapse of the rules governing the game.

2. You can burn the game board and ensure that no other games are played because all the players are dead or soon to be dead. I think Edward Teller provided the solution to that alternative.