Resource based economy – utopian nirvana or eco-fascism?

I was off sick yesterday and being unable to do much other than watch telly, I ended up watching Zeitgeist: Moving Forward on netflix. One of the main things it was talking about was the interesting concept of a Resource Based Economy.

It all sounded wonderful, especially to an old pinko-liberal like myself, but I couldn’t help but think that this has been tried before in Soviet Russia which didn’t exactly turn out well. So eco-fascism or a viable alternative to the current madness? And more importantly, would the end of planned obsolescence result in one bottom bracket standard?

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!

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.

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

Or the ar5e5 of the lazy **** 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 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

Its just not true. We are not all selfish despite the insistence of some that we all are. Plenty of people could earn more doing other things would be better of stealing and lying and cheating but they choose not to. We [ the human race] are as capable of selfishness as we are of altruism. Some humans rape and its inherent to the human condition* but this does not mean we are all rapists or even the majority are. greed is similar its the minority that are greedy even in a culture dedicated to it and indulgence.

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

we cooperated to be here and we did not live as solo units.

* 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 total 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 holistic

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?

By most measures the current system is working very well with greater life expectancy, higher standard of living all supporting a much increased population. There are billions of poor people round the world who would love to live like we do.

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.