[Closed] Resource based economy - utopian nirvana or eco-fascism?

The problem with that kind of thing is that there is always some greedy **** wants to get rich out of it so it all falls down.

I guess the answer to that would be that you can't get 'rich' if money does't exist and everything is freely available. Take away the concept of ownership and 'getting rich' becomes meaningless doesn't it?

In Soviet Russia political power was the most valuable resource, it ended up in the hands of an elite, and it ultimately lead to it's demise. Pretty much the same thing is happening now with capatalism.

For a resource based economy to work (or any other system) then the world needs to take a step of emotional maturity, and start treating the greedy and the selfish as the immature spoilt brats they are, rather than rewarding them with power and money.

Only works if all people are equal, which they aren't. You could split the worlds wealth equally and tomorrow some will be broke and some will be rich.

Not sure I have a practical solution to solve the problem though.

Resource based economy relies on everyone (countries and individuals) being honest. The value of a lot of things (diamonds!) would plummet, and a few people wouldn't like that!

[i]The problem with that kind of thing is that there is always some greedy **** wants to get rich out of it so it all falls down. [/i]

Or some lazy ****, who is happy to let others work.

dazh - Member

I guess the answer to that would be that you can't get 'rich' if money does't exist and everything is freely available.

Yup, and the people who've got rich off the current system are also in charge of the world. Which I'm sure is a massive coincidence.

Or some lazy ****, who is happy to let others work.

How dare you !
How very dare you 😈

b r - Member

Or some lazy ****, who is happy to let others work.

Yep, because as it stands, there's absolutely nobody getting the benefit of other people's hard work 😆

Even without money, there's alway rich and poor.

The commodities just change, cash, influence, materials, food.

Or some lazy ****, who is happy to let others work.

Well if I've understood the concept properly that point is also irrelevant. Success would not be measured by monetary or material gain, but by personal fulfilment in whatever you choose to do. If a person chooses to be lazy then that's their choice, and since in a sustainably balanced economy there would be much less work required to maintain the system, it's not really a problem.

My main problem with this is how the system would ensure the sufficient variety and choice of goods that would sustain people's work and recreation to avoid a depressingly bland and conformist existence. Think I'm leaning towards the eco-fascism side at the minute.

I don't get how this is meant to work. Who's going to clean the bogs?

Or is it dependent on us having invented robots to do absolutely everything? Whatever jobs people do, there are always going to be less desirable ones. Imagine if everyone who wanted to be a rockstar could be one? For that to happen, everyone would have to be going to concerts every waking hour!

How do you allocate scarce goods? (question as per molgrips a minute earlier!)

[i]I don't get how this is meant to work. Who's going to clean the bogs?[/i]

Or the ar5e5 of the lazy ****s who are too fat to get out of bed.

Without reward, there is no risk, without risk, there is no reward.

In a utopian resource based society without money, barter debt or servitude, how exactly would you propose getting people to do hard physical labour, or take on the roles that were arduous or dangerous?

who would be a miner, when they could could do something cleaner, nicer and less dangerous instead, or as suggested, just not bother working at all?

I still don't get it.

Resources are not unlimited on Earth. So if demand for something outstrips supply, what are you going to do? Lottery?

Lol at the Frequently Asked Questions! I really don't think those ARE the most frequently asked questions. The most frequently asked ones are the ones in this thread 🙂

What a total load of fantasty bollocks. Iain Banks was better at this, and he wrote fiction.

What I find most scary is that some adults actually talk about this kind of stuff with straight faces.

Always worth remembering that the selfishness of human nature is inherent. A few highly moral people can override it but we're hardwired to be concerned first and foremost about our own survival. The only reason any of us are here right now is that our ancestors grabbed enough resources to survive... The ones who didn't, didn't get to pass on their genes

Resources are not unlimited on Earth. So if demand for something outstrips supply, what are you going to do? Lottery?

I think the idea is that the scarcity and finite nature of resources is hard wired into the system. If the planet can't sustain something, it can't be used, and demand is based on need rather than want. Who decides though?

As for the 'human nature' argument, they have an answer to that too in the nature vs nurture debate. The research suggests that humans are a product of their environment, take away the negative stimuli and the negative behaviours disappear too. Or so the theory goes. It's one area where I think they're probably right.

The current economic model isn't sustainable... collapse is inevitable, look at the [url= http://www.debtbombshell.com/ ]national debt[/url], hence the low interest rates.

Beyond that, current rates of consumerism are far beyond anything the planet has ever had to contend with... if we keep raping and polluting at the current rate, what will be left for our Great Grandkids?

Don't really think a purely resource based barter economy is viable, but real change from the current system is nigh on essential if we are to keep the planet working in harmony.

Always worth remembering that the selfishness of human nature is inherent

The only reason any of us are here right now is that our ancestors grabbed enough resources to survive... The ones who didn't, didn't get to pass on their genes

* not arguing this point just using it as an example

+1 The successful people are cooperators. Really successful people are those that can get other people to cooperate on their behalf. The zeitgeist movies are a load of rubbish though. I think the only possible way it could get remotely close to working would be if the population was massively reduced, even then I don't think it would work due to the massive control it would require and the lack or risk / reward e.t.c.

cheekyboy - Member

What I find most scary is that some adults actually talk about this kind of stuff with straight faces.

And meanwhile, the current system... The one where the producers of wealth receive only a fraction of what they create, while the hoarders of capital who restrict production take a fortune... And where on the one hand we dedicate vast efforts to rationing resources so that some people have less than they need, while also trying to convince everyone that they need more... And you should be glad for the opportunity to work for 50 years to make rich people richer. Oh and you can be born in a country that's in debt and apparently that's your problem for daring to be born, original debt. Unless you leave, which people say as if that's a solution but actually just makes the absurdity of the whole situation even more apparent

Yeah, that all makes [i]total[/i] sense doesn't it.

Eventually there will be a resource-based world. We're consuming far more than 1 planets-worth of resources every year, so we'll eventually eat ourselves whole. We are currently on a path to a very interesting and dangerous place.

Eventually there will be a resource-based world.

Well either that or billions of people dying. I can't say I'm as optimistic. I think given the current human trait for violence and short-sightedness it's much more likely that the problem will be 'solved' by a nuclear war or some other self-inflicted cataclysm.

what will be left for our Great Grandkids

I'm not sure you'll have to wait that long. I reckon if we avoid killing ourselves in the aforementioned nuclear war, these things are highly likely to happen within our own lifetime or that of our kids. There are already shortages of key resources (copper and other precious metals), others have peaked or are close to doing so (the key one being oil), and others are abundant but extremely damaging such as coal, tar sands etc. Combine this with a ballooning population and it won't take long for systemic collapse to occur.

Jesus. I sound like some millenium freak conspiracist.

The problem as stated above, is who is going to do the rubbish jobs?

So you can sit at home and watch TV or you can go diving in sewage farm to clear a blocked pump?

Copper mining anyone?

The list could be endless.

I can't watch at work so I'm weak on the concept here, but I would cheerfully do the odd day of sewage-far pump diving if (a) it was genuinely for the good of humanity and (b) I didn't have to do it every bloody day for the rest of my life.

I suspect most of us would. 🙂

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a [b]holistic[/b]

I'm out.

Big data could run communism

Just need a way of getting accurate data, or data with known levels of inaccuracy.

The problem as stated above, is who is going to do the rubbish jobs?

I think the idea is that as many of them as possible will be mechanised, and any remaining would be covered by volunteers. It's difficult in our current competition-driven world to see that happening, but in a scenario where your every need is provided and you are no longer driven by material gain is it so ludicrous to imagine that people might give up their time to do something altruistic? Even now in our cut-throat system many people do this so I don't think it's impossible.

is it so ludicrous to imagine that people might give up their time to do something altruistic?

There are plenty of hard, difficult, hazardous jobs that need a lot of skill, knowledge and training. You can't do them safely and effectively as a "part time amateur".

Who is going to operate the ships that will transport our free resource around the World to areas where it is needed? Why would you want to spend weeks/months away from home if there was no reward?

Who gets to decide where individuals live? Who is going to live in Saudi and operate the oil fields until we get our renewables sorted out? Living in a scorching hot desert for a few years? No thanks I will go the Vancouver thank you.

Why would you want to spend weeks/months away from home if there was no reward?

Well I'm not claiming to have the answers, but again if I've understood it properly the 'reward' is the act itself and the knowledge that you are contributing to the greater good. And as people would have real freedom to choose to do what they want with their time, would/could this not result in jobs such as this being done by people more suited to them? So your example of shipping, instead of people with families being away from home doing it, there would be people with a sense of adventure and who like travelling by sea doing it. Is that not a better solution to bribing/paying someone to do it who doesn't really want to?

gobuchul - Member

Who is going to operate the ships that will transport our free resource around the World to areas where it is needed?

I know a couple of guys who crew bulk carriers, they chose it... they both love the life at sea, did ocean liners and hated having to deal with other humans... They don't do it to get rich, because they're not getting rich. In the world population, it's not too unrealistic to find 20000 people who'd choose to do the job, or would be willing to do it since it needs done. And jobs can be made easier, or more desirable. (one of the things that riles them is poor onboard accomodation, and there's absolutely no reason for that other than daft penny pinching, saving a grand on a ship that cost millions of dollars.)

Also, a huge amount of commodity/resource transportation is nonessential or an artifact of the current system, these guys presumably expect a return to more localised production. "In your utopia, how will my fresh artisan wangleberries get to my table in December?" "They won't, this sort of thing is mental. Have a parsnip"

So eco-fascism or a viable alternative to the current madness?

there would be people with a sense of adventure and who like travelling by sea doing it.

There is not a lot of adventure transporting 250,000t of iron ore round the World.

It takes on average 10 years to qualify as a Master Mariner or Chief Engineer, why would you bother? Any "adventure" would of lost it's attraction by then.

I know a couple of guys who crew bulk carriers, they chose it... they both love the life at sea, did ocean liners and hated having to deal with other humans.

99.9% of mariners chose their job because of the relatively high wages and lots of time off. They make the deal that they give up 6 or 8 months of their year and have 6 or 4 months off to do what they want. In the UK they also get a 100% income tax rebate.

The 3rd World seafarers, although poorly paid by our standards, are wealthy people back home.

By the way, passengers aren't "human".

By most measures the current system is working very well

There are billions of poor people round the world

I was wondering when you'd pop up. You have a real talent for contradicting yourself don't you? 🙂

a return to more localised production

You will still have to transport the iron, copper, coal etc from the parts of the World where it is produced to the the areas of the World where it is needed.

It takes on average 10 years to qualify as a Master Mariner or Chief Engineer, why would you bother?

It might currently take that long, but no doubt that period could be shortened and made easier. Bearing in mind in this new world order the education system would no doubt be revolutionised then I'd harbour a guess that it wouldn't be completely impossible to easily re-educate and re-train people to undertake new roles in society. As to why you would bother, I'll simply repeat what I said before, you'd bother because you'd *want* to do it. For every 100/1000 people who'd sit on a beach, there's probably one who'd like to travel the seas in solitude on a big ship.

Thing is a lot of people already do give up time and put in a lot of hard work to make the place better, safer, whatever. That's why we have things like ISO Standards, and Institutes / Research Centers providing guidelines, best practice etc.

Plus some jobs just aren't for volunteers, anyone fancy some random volunteers managing aircraft, pipeline or nuclear reactor safety & integrity?

dragon - Member

Plus some jobs just aren't for volunteers, anyone fancy some random volunteers managing aircraft, pipeline or nuclear reactor safety & integrity?

Volunteers doesn't mean unqualified or unskilled people 😕 No you wouldn't want some random doing it, but that's OK because nobody suggests that.

Why would anyone volunteer to be a nuclear engineer on a full time basis when the rest of you are riding your bikes around Whistler?

It might currently take that long, but no doubt that period could be shortened and made easier.

So you shorten training period and lower standards for your volunteers? There is a reason it takes 10 years to achieve certain professional qualifications.

The whole idea is bobbins.

Why would anyone volunteer to be a nuclear engineer on a full time basis when the rest of you are riding your bikes around Whistler?

You're missing the point I think. Ignoring for a second that in a sustainable, ecological resource-based economy nuclear energy would probably not be used and so nuclear engineers wouldn't be required, the whole point is that no one would have to do anything full time as the system would require much less labour to sustain it. Even so, no doubt some people would want to spend more time doing some things that others think are boring or pointless.

The whole idea is bobbins.

And consuming the planet's resources with a system that assumes infinite growth isn't?

gobuchul - Member

Why would anyone volunteer to be a nuclear engineer on a full time basis when the rest of you are riding your bikes around Whistler?

Because they want to? Because they find it fascinating, or want to give something back? Lots of people would ask "why would you want to ride a bike round whistler" in the same incredulous tones. Or "why would you spend your entire life doing a job you don't want to do, just so you can buy things you don't need"

it wouldn't have to be a full-time basis, of course. There's nothing magical about a 5 day week that makes it the right way to do things.

Every murderous despotic dictator started off with grand ideas of creating an equality based utopia, everyone has failed, every attempt has created war, misery and untold suffering.
Every generation believe they have the answer.
It's a fact, there is no solution.
Why do you think they created religions ?

Because they want to? Because they find it fascinating, or want to give something back?

I can just see the line of volunteers attracted to the glamour and thrill of digging fatbergs out of sewers!

Oh, yeah, 'there will be a machine for that'...

What I really like is the whole 'we only need to make one type of saucepan' bit of the article - bring back the Trabant!

There's no reason why a resource based economy would be eco-anything, and within a day of kicking it off you'd have re-invented currency anyway. Something would become the defacto go to portable thing everyone tends to pay with. Everything will be valued according to pounds of rice, or GB on SD cards, or whatever.

And then someone will start looking after your rice for you, and one day someone'll give someone else the receipt for their rice instead of bothering to fetch the actual rice itself...

There's a reason money exists.

I can just see the line of volunteers attracted to the glamour and thrill of digging fatbergs out of sewers!

I think in a largely mechanised, sustainable and ecological society, fatbergs probably wouldn't exist in sewers as there'd be a proper waste system which was designed to handle fat so it didn't build up.

Oh, that happens overnight does it?

No legacy issues from the past in the new nirvana?

Does the existing nuclear waste just evaporate the moment the new economy is introduced?

It strikes me as an idea dreamed up by people who haven't had to do any difficult jobs in difficult conditions.

I can think of loads of jobs that may sound glamorous and interesting but the reality is different. Yes - there are still good days with a lot of job satisfaction but enough to keep you doing it for "nothing"? I doubt it.

I have worked in a number of sectors of the marine industry, I love my current job but would I do it if I could be doing something else that is much easier and still have the same standard of living? I doubt it.

Rope access technicians are a good example, a lot of them are climbers and they really enjoy their work but it's a means to an end, gives them money and time off so they go climbing properly. They wouldn't be offshore if they could be up a mountain somewhere and not have to worry about the finances.

ninfan - Member

Oh, that happens overnight does it?

Course it doesn't. And nobody ever suggested it would, or could.

I don't think anyone ever claimed this could be put in place overnight. It'd take decades. And for all the people crying 'it's too hard', 'what about this...' etc, look at how things changed in WW2. The changes that the US and UK made to re-model their economies to aid the war effort were pretty remarkable.

dazh - Member

For every 100/1000 people who'd sit on a beach, there's probably one who'd like to travel the seas in solitude on a big ship.

yes, i can understand why some people would choose to crew ships, and sail around the world.

finding these people wouldn't be the problem.

finding people happy to work for more than say... 30 seconds on an assembly line would be near-impossible.

Not as remarkable as what is being suggested here

The changes that the US and UK made to re-model their economies to aid the war effort were pretty remarkable.

Brilliant example, thank you... Now, how did we get people to work in the coal mines during WW2?

Did women choose to go and work in the factories and fields, or were they compelled to through conscription under the national service act?

Iain Banks just about made this sound plausible, although that required infinite supplies of energy and living space, and virtually godlike AIs running things...

Hey guys, looking for volunteers for the 'Dirty Thirty' cleanup. Anyone? Anyone?

Guys?

Is anyone there?

Thought not.

i can understand why some people would choose to crew ships, and sail around the world.

With the right conditions, sure. But who says teleporters will ever happen? Speaking as an ex engineer the problem isn't the job but the fact that whilst you're stuck on a ship the world is passing you by. I'd do it again tomorrow if I could come home to my own bed at night.

As for accelerating to chief. No. There is a good reason why it's an experience and qualification based promotion:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nine-die-in-fireball-as-ships-collide-panamanianregistered-bulkcarrier-which-struck-british-petrol-tanker-may-have-broken-fog-safety-rules-1489444.html

finding people happy to work for more than say... 30 seconds on an assembly line would be near-impossible.

Again, something that is mostly able to be mechanised. Interesting how pretty much all the naysayers are coming up with mostly minor examples of issues that either wouldn't exist in a resource-based economy or are relatively easy to resolve or mitigate. If this is all there is to throw at it I'm beginning to think it's a lot easier than I first thought 🙂

Not as remarkable as what is being suggested here

Not sure on this. In WW2 pretty much the entire economy and population were mobilised to produce weapons and supplies and overcome the inability to import goods. And this happened in a couple of years, not decades.

Yes, BUT they were mobilised to do so by conscription, backed by law and forced to do the jobs they were told to do without any choice (eg Bevin Boys, land girls etc)

dazh - Member

something that is mostly able to be mechanised.

so, robots will do all the crap jobs?

is that it?

Yes, BUT they were mobilised to do so by conscription, backed by law and forced to do the jobs they were told to do without any choice

Yes but it at least shows that huge changes can be made to an economy at the macro level towards a specific aim. The politics behind how you implement it is a separate debate, and in the links in the OP the mechanism by which this would be put in place is left open. It's only looking at the economics of whether it would be possible with existing resources and technology to have a sustainable resource based system.

Fair enough. When all this comes about, I guarantee I will post a thread on here in which I will unreservedly apologise for my scepticism. 😉

Because they want to? Because they find it fascinating, or want to give something back?

Really? How many people really want to spend 10+ years of their life understanding and maintaining big infrastructure? You know the stuff that matters, like stable electricity supply, water supplies, bridges not collapsing? Most of the time it is a long way from interesting, but it does pay okay.

At least in this new Utopia they'll be no Apple-Android-Microsoft or Shimano-SRAM-Campag debates as we'll all be using the same stuff. Fun 😥

I suppose you could mechanise ships but that requires some sort of technological leap from somewhere.

And yes, the economies of WW2 were born of an authoritarian system. You seem to be arguing for a libertarian system.

the politics behind how you implement it is a Seperate debate

It really isn't, as the only way it could ever work is compulsion, which is incompatible with the entire suggestion of a system without money, barter, debt or servitude!

I'm not arguing for anything, I'm just discussing something I happened to come across whilst off work. I'm as sceptical as everyone. It sounds great, and much of it makes more sense than the current ridiculous system, but there are major problems. I don't think these are the issues of getting people to do the jobs that are required though. I think the major problems are that it would be very difficult to provide the variety and volume of goods, services and jobs/careers required to keep people mentally stimulated with all the free time they have. I actually think that people would be queueing up to do a lot of the jobs mentioned (engineers etc) as otherwise they'd be so bored they'd go insane.

squirrelking - Member

Hey guys, looking for volunteers for the 'Dirty Thirty' cleanup. Anyone? Anyone?

Guys?

Is anyone there?

Thought not.

Do you not clean your own bathroom? Are you going to sit on your arse while rubbish piles up in the street?

Of course volunteers are only one way to do things. You can have public service rosters/ballots/lotteries, frexample, which are all much fairer than the current system of inexplicably paying people hardly anything to do jobs you don't want to do yourself. The highly skilled jobs are more difficult than the crap jobs tbh.

dragon - Member

Really? How many people really want to spend 10+ years of their life understanding and maintaining big infrastructure?

If you like, I can nip down to the department and round up a whole bunch of them?

You can have public service rosters/ballots/lotteries,

No you can't, the ethos precludes debt or servitude!

No you can't, the ethos precludes debt or servitude!

We had a roster for the washing up in my shared house for a while - I don't remember considering that servitude.

It really isn't, as the only way it could ever work is compulsion, which is incompatible with the entire suggestion of a system without money, barter, debt or servitude!

You have a lack of imagination I think. Compulsion is one way of implementing it (hence my eco-fascism comments), revolution and the mass restructuring of society is another. More likely, and preferably, it'd be a mix of both, a recognition that there is a problem that needs to be solved, then a deliberate and gradual process of re-education and reform towards the goal. You could start stripping away some of the worst aspects of the market system almost immediately whilst beginning the rebuilding of infrastructure. Re-educating people would be a multi-generational process though.

Re-education?

Will there be camps where this takes place?

seriously, If the only way you can achieve your goal is through a mixture of revolution, compulsion and mandatory re-education, then I reckon you've answered your initial question 😆

Hah, I had a bet on with myself that you'd jump on "re-education" like that 😆

😀 had to be done

I think it's impressive that in two and a bit pages we've taken Dazh from self confessed pinko liberal to outing himself as a full on Pol Pot style dystopian nightmare

You have a lack of imagination I think. Compulsion is one way of implementing it (hence my eco-fascism comments), revolution and the mass restructuring of society is another. More likely, and preferably, it'd be a mix of both, a recognition that there is a problem that needs to be solved, then a deliberate and gradual process of re-education and reform towards the goal. You could start stripping away some of the worst aspects of the market system almost immediately whilst beginning the rebuilding of infrastructure. Re-educating people would be a multi-generational process though.

Ah gotcha .................. Aka totalitarianism

The trouble with all these sorts of ideas is that they are good at identifying what is wrong with our current society but actually putting together a viable, realistic alternative is where they come a cropper (think Marxism)

Ah gotcha .................. Aka totalitarianism

At school I had lessons in how to hold down a job*, how to manage my finances and in how our political system works. I'm not sure dazh is proposing much more in the way of indoctrination than that.

*Not including anything about posting on STW whilst I should be doing something else.

Do you not clean your own bathroom? Are you going to sit on your arse while rubbish piles up in the street?

Of course not. But at the same time cleaning either of those isn't a very real and credible danger to life. I have no idea how you would compel someone to take part in a cleanup that makes reactor diving look like a complete non-issue in comparison.

Don't be daft. Like the entire news-media and education system isn't an effort in brainwashing people to think the current system is the only viable one? Maybe I should've used the term 'education' rather than 're-education', but de-programming the decades of pro-market propaganda that people can have whatever they want at no cost to future generations is going to be quite an effort. Compulsion? Maybe it would be required to get there. It wouldn't be the first time extreme measures have been used to prevent societal destruction though would it?

And like I said, I'm not promoting anything, just musing on it when I should be doing some work...