Forced birthcontrol

Originally posted by Zenarctic
You actually get the answer in the "Zeitgeist Moving Forward" and "Zeitgeist Where are we going?", but both are at least two hours in length, so I wouldn't ask you to watch them unless you're sincerely curious.

There are several possible, practical solutions to the problem, and I suspect there would be more than one practical way of acquiring goods in a ...[text shortened]... and helping it to determine how to allocate and produce resources for the future.

I saw the video, obviously, there's no other way I could have learned a bit how many misconceptions and insane ramblings it's filled with.

That is not an answer to the question, because the whole point of an economy is to try to allocate finite resources to a population. So the need for an economic system actually is the need to deal with scarcity. Abundance seems easy, right? Just give it to everybody and problem solved. But nothing I've seen or that you've explained seems to deal with scarcity.

Imagine I go to this demand interface and demand a camera. How does the system determine who needs the camera most? It cannot know. So how does it do it? First come, first serve? That sounds terrible. And if you need to tell it how much you need it, then basically you need to trust people not to lie when they request things. Then you cap it by only allowing some demand points but then...you guessed it! This is the much reviled money!

How does the global demand system deal with scarcity and prioritization of needs for identical items?

Originally posted by Sake
In the Netherlands a professor raised the following:
Parents who have shown that they are not capable of raising children, should be forced not having any children in the future.
This when repeated child abuse of all sorts, neglect and more of this kind has been proven by the court of law.
Debate.

I say go for it!! All we need are reproductive government panels to decide who is worthy to reproduce and who is not. Brilliant!!

Originally posted by whodey
I say go for it!! All we need are reproductive government panels to decide who is worthy to reproduce and who is not. Brilliant!!

It's the same government who picks up the pieces when parents themselves decide they are not able to raise the children. Double standards at least.

Originally posted by Sake
In the Netherlands a professor raised the following:
Parents who have shown that they are not capable of raising children, should be forced not having any children in the future.
This when repeated child abuse of all sorts, neglect and more of this kind has been proven by the court of law.
Debate.

The thing is that this will tend to be used by the rich to prevent the poor from competing with their kids. That's the biggist threat I see. Poverty leads to child neglect and abuse because in an uncertain environment of scarcity r-selection strategies are favored. In other words, luck is a much bigger factor for the poor than for the rich, so they breed like rabbits and neglect the kids. This takes approximately 2 generations to fix, but it can be fixed without castrating the poor people.

Originally posted by Sake
He came with this example: a woman had 14 (!) children. Thirteen had been taken away from her. He was not explicite why they had been taken out. When she was aloud to keep the 14th (why?), she spoiled him that much, that he weighed 70kg at his 9th birthday.
He mentioned cases where children were abused and neglected systematicly.
But I can come up with a few ...[text shortened]... worldfamous Belgian childabuser and killer. Should he become a father, even when he's in jail?

Whatever rights are necessary to remove your threat are surrendered when you violate others' rights. It's ok to put criminals in jail despite their right to liberty. Other examples are similar.

The first woman has proved herself a violator of her childrens' rights to a responsible parent or guardian. Your woman in the psychiatric hospital is obviously irrational and incapable of being a mother. The child molester, again, violated childrens' rights.

Tough call. This is eugenics, which has been discussed before and is extremely controversial and abusable.

Originally posted by Palynka
I saw the video, obviously, there's no other way I could have learned a bit how many misconceptions and insane ramblings it's filled with.

That is not an answer to the question, because the whole point of an economy is to try to allocate finite resources to a population. So the need for an economic system actually is the need to deal with scarcity. Abunda ...[text shortened]... the global demand system deal with scarcity and prioritization of needs for identical items?

This argument about scarcity would make some sense if resources really were scarce. They're not scarce. They're just owned by the rich in a legal sense (but in violation of the philosophical sense).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This argument about scarcity would make some sense if resources really were scarce. They're not scarce. They're just owned by the rich in a legal sense (but in violation of the philosophical sense).

Resources are not scarce? What world are you living in?

That was the whole point of a resource based economy, using scarce resources efficiently.

Originally posted by Palynka
Resources are not scarce? What world are you living in?

That was the whole point of a resource based economy, using scarce resources efficiently.

I live in Los Angeles. There's tons of food here. Too much housing. What else do you need?

EDIT - We import water because it's more convenient than building solar distillation facilities and resevoirs to harnass the winter rains and seawater.

Originally posted by Palynka
Resources are not scarce? What world are you living in?

That was the whole point of a resource based economy, using scarce resources efficiently.

Property rights based economies are based on the assumption that resources are NOT scarce!

http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/01/right-to-own-property.html

Originally posted by Palynka
How does the global demand system deal with scarcity and prioritization of needs for identical items?

That is an absolutely relevant question, and I must apologise for assuming you didn't really know what we were talking about. I'm often confronted by ignorance and superficial understanding of the resource based economy, that forces me to respond in the most basic sense, hoping to get people to a level of understanding where they would ask me questions of actual relevance.

Now, I would ask you to bare with me for just one more paragraph before I attempt an answer. No one is saying that the resource based economy is a perfect solution. In fact, I would jump the ship in a minute if anyone could present a better solution to the many social problems that exist today (as a result of the monetary system). I mean, no one in his/her right mind would suggest that the problem lies in the most fundamental principles of our current culture and societal order (set and reinforced through thousands of years of human history and culture, with which we very much identify today) unless (s)he sincerely believe it to be so. As a Zeitgeist member I'm met with all sorts of emotional outlets that I'd much rather not face to be honest. That said, let's look at your excellent question and see if I can provide an answer that satisfies you, or at least inspires you to maybe consider an answer on your own.

As I understand it, scarcity comes in three different flavours (if you will), of which only one applies to your question. For lack of proper terminology, I'll call them:

1. Generated scarcity - food, water and other resources that currently a large portion of earth's population can't afford (and probably never will be able to afford in a monetary system), though the resources in question are actually quite abundant (or at the very least easily made abundant).

2. Relative scarcity - oil, lithium, coal are all examples of resources that doesn't get reproduced in the same pace we use them, but for which alternatives can be (and to a large degree has been) found. If we can replace a scarcity by simply finding alternatives through research and experimentation, the prioritisation issue is again avoided.

3. Actual scarcity - the only relevant form of scarcity to your question. A scarcity that cannot be dealt with through alternative options (at least not currently).

I think the keyword in your question is "prioritization", and actual scarcity is the only kind that would require us to do so. First of all, I haven't done a lot of research myself on the issue (and I've probably missed the obvious), but I couldn't find a single example of such a resource. Though I'm certain that examples of it does exist, so the question is quite relevant, for it is how we deal with problems within an economic system, that defines the quality of it. The fact that a resource based economy would lift the human condition to a whole new level, isn't enough if a basic problem exists that would seem to require money to be solved.

But does money really solve this issue? (Don't worry, I will get to how a resource based economy could conceivably deal with this issue.) Let's consider water scarcity. In our monetary system, clean water could be available to all of earth's people by utilising the proper technologies, but can still not be accessed by all because there's not enough money. Now, those whom have money can access water in abundance, and those without money obviously can't get even enough for their survival. Hence, money is not really a good indicator of need, and thus should not be considered a relevant solution to the problem. But what alternative do we have?

We must consider the type of resource first, its usage and purpose. Let's use apples as an example. We eat them, so obviously no one will want to reuse them (well, not as food anyway). Hence, time-sharing (which could feasibly be applied to the example with the camera) doesn't apply here. Instead, we need to divide in equal shares, simply noting that since no one has put any effort into growing the apples, no one is entitled to more than anyone else. It's different if you decide to grow your own apple tree, and put effort into that pursuit. In that case, obviously, you would be allowed to eat as many apples as you possibly can and throw away the rest if you so wish. You do the labour, you "own" the result. Of course, no one will want to do that in a resource based economy. It just doesn't make any sense when you can have apples for free whenever you want, and the system will attempt to produce apples that meet the demand.

Ok, so apples obviously doesn't make for a good example. There are different kinds of needs. There's the need for survival in which there's no question the resource based economy can provide for everyone today in equal, sufficient shares. Then there's the need for entertainment or want, which is actually quite hard to determine objectively. In that case, I would suggest that the resource in question be divided equally, and that research is done to figure out how to make the resource more abundant. In fact, if there's ever a moment where human ingenuity comes into play, it's when we feel the need for something we can't currently have.

So, it doesn't solve the problem of prioritisation in a satisfiable manner if the resource is so scarce that each share becomes ridiculously small, but it deals with the problem in (I think) a more reasonable manner than a monetary system would. To summarize:

1. Essential resources that we all require to survive will be equally shared, and there's no question those needs can be met.
2. Resources that satisfy other needs, and that can't be shared between people such that one can use an item after another person has used it, will also have to be shared equally among those who feel they need it (here is where we might come short).
3. Resources that can be shared on the other hand, will be time-shared automatically so that everyone who needs them will be given an equal time-share.

This is my suggestion on how this type of situation can be managed, but I'm sure that there are better solutions that others can think of, and the one thing that really fires me up (positively speaking) about the venus project, is the idea that no idea is too good to be challenged. I believe one of the basic reasons all human societies to date has failed (to a smaller or larger degree) is that they've all produced an elite establishment who would not allow change even when change was desperately needed, causing unnecessary human suffering and conflict. This would not happen in a system where there is no social stratification, and where the need for human servitude is ingeniously eliminated through automation technology.

Originally posted by Zenarctic
That is an absolutely relevant question, and I must apologise for assuming you didn't really know what we were talking about. I'm often confronted by ignorance and superficial understanding of the resource based economy, that forces me to respond in the most basic sense, hoping to get people to a level of understanding where they would ask me questions of is ingeniously eliminated through automation technology.

Thanks for putting some considerable work to explain me what you mean. I haven't read it as it's Friday evening and I need more patience than I have at the moment to give it the attention it deserves. But I'll definitely come back to this, so hopefully you'll be around some days from now.

Originally posted by Palynka
I haven't read it as it's Friday evening ... but I'll definitely come back to this, so hopefully you'll be around some days from now.

Absolutely. Enjoy your weekend.

Originally posted by Zenarctic
You actually get the answer in the "Zeitgeist Moving Forward" and "Zeitgeist Where are we going?", but both are at least two hours in length, so I wouldn't ask you to watch them unless you're sincerely curious.

There are several possible, practical solutions to the problem, and I suspect there would be more than one practical way of acquiring goods in a ...[text shortened]... and helping it to determine how to allocate and produce resources for the future.

Wikipedia has articles on Peter Joseph and resource based economy.

Obviously, pre-money societies have existed, but is scarcity really something we can eliminate without changing the basic nature of the universe? And I mean basic and universe. It seems inevitable that the rise of life forms that consume calories and reproduce at a greater rate than they die off, will bring with it eventual scarcity, for some living beings, of at the least, available calories.

The analogy to WWII and the US following a resource-based model to build up its air power is interesting (i.e., not enough money and no way to just buy 90,000 planes a year, but plenty of resources including natural and labor). It makes me think that having a common, unifying threat from outside, could be instrumental in creating an environment conducive to a resource based economy. One problem is that we don't take threats seriously until they are upon us -- climate change being an potential example, or not, depending on who you believe. Let's not take the debate in that direction, please.

Originally posted by Sake
It's the same government who picks up the pieces when parents themselves decide they are not able to raise the children. Double standards at least.

Who needs parents with Big Brother to raise our children?