Difference between revisions of "Talk:Resource-Based Economic Model"

Revision as of 10:00, 23 February 2013

Please observe the following wiki etiquette (by veganforvenus (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2012 (EST)):

1. Leave comments logged on as a user. Creating a user is very easy, and you can even login with your facebook user to make it even easier. Alternatively, if you must, please let us know who you are.
2. Don't make personal remarks, opinions, or leave personal messages that do not add to the conversation, like "I'll read this more carefully later"
3. When starting a new topic, name the topic enclosed within double equal signs at both sides (== example ==); if it is a subtopic, ensure it has one extra equal sign than the topic at both sides (=== sub-example===)
4. When commenting on someone else's topic, begin the comment with a colon (: my comment); when commenting on a comment that has colons already, ensure the new comment has one extra colon (:: my reply to your comment)
5. Leave a signature and a timestamp on comments added; this can easily be done by adding three (just the signature) or four (includes a timestamp) ~ signs together (e.g. ~~~~: the wiki engine will convert that before saving
6. When adding a list of external links (e.g. videos), it is highly desirable to have next to each link a short description of them

General notes

I will read this more carefully at some point and find a place to insert a section for core fundamentals of an RBE.

Please state who you are, and if possible introduce yourself in your personal page. Also, ensure all comments are relevant and add to the conversation.

When adding a new section, please ensure it is not redundant, and that it is properly documented. Alternatively, as it will be standard in this wiki, add your personal interpretation of an RBE (or disagreement with that stated in the RBE page) in your own personal page. This will enable, when there are enough of such pages, to make an analysis of where people generally coincide, and where there are varying opinions. veganforvenus (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2012 (EST)

RBE Social values

Autonomy: Individualism vs Collectivism

The first one that springs to mind is the respect and valuing of individual autonomy, which differentiates an RBE from socialism which is collectivist. An RBE isn't really an RBE if it doesn't respect the freedom of the individual. This is very important, as any system, however well planned and intentioned, always turns fascist when it doesn't value the autonomy and sovereignty of individual human beings.

Is this your interpretation? Can you back this information with relevant sources? Relevant sources are very important in this wiki; RBE is prone to interpretation and it must be very clear when definitions come from personal interpretation or from documented sources (ideally surveys!). veganforvenus (talk)

I definitely share the anonymously stated OPINION above (all of it depending on what you exactly understand by fascist), which is why I started a page that discusses these issues. At the moment I see no chance to participate in a project that takes away this individual autonomy. Facts might change my mind, although I strongly BELIEVE there are no facts that could do this. However, also the other contributors / planners / participants / supporters / ... highly value empirical data, and I hope a detailed discussion of the matter plus surveys will enable my participation, if there are no other obstacles. Feel free to suggest a different title, place or structure of the discussion. All current rules and definitions (including the name of the project, the exact goals, any numbers stated, and the agreements for participants) are subject to change, as I understand from documented discussion and personal communication with other contributors. Andreas

RBE core elements

Abundance

The second is that an RBE isn't an RBE without economics predominantly based on abundance. As an RBE is about catering to the interests of the whole of humanity, rather than the interests of a select few. This is an element an RBE shares with socialism. But it's a case of collective good by way of individual freedom, rather than trying to reach an ideal of collective good and forcing it on the collective, which is ultimately therefore not in the interest of the collective anyway, because the collective is made up of individuals.

Abundance is a topic that involves many factors and is prone to interpretation, it deserves its own page. veganforvenus (talk)

The term "Resource Based Economy" is based on the assumption that resources are for the most part abundant. So in order to be more clear, one could use the term "Abundant Resources Based Economy", or "Abundant Resources Based Economics".

All add your proposal to the list of alternative names for RBE (as there have been many complaints that RBE is too vague a name, and often prone to misinterpretation). veganforvenus (talk)

Some good videos on the topic of abundance in economics, explaining what it is, and why it's important:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&noredirect=1
• http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmSzqMLA670
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2xJ1CnVfsk&NR=1&feature=endscreen
• And here's David Suzuki describing how conventional economics is divorced from the wholistic interests of the worlds people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se55CCdfaOA

RBE by Jacque Fresco

The RBE explained by Jacque Fresco is clear and easy in the official web (http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy) and it is very different as the RBEModel explained here. please references and sources must be respected. User:ioloo

Additional thoughts by Wouter

The Rbem goes from the starting point of 'declaring all the earths resources common heritage by all the worlds people', resources meaning natural resources as well as any resources on which humans rely (such as trucks). This way the Rbem has no antagonist. It is the difference of thinking about humanity in a holistic way, and not thinking about humanity at all. The difference of thinking about where to go as a species, and not doing thinking about the subject at all, resulting in a 'laissez faire' (which can never be deliberate as one cannot deliberately not interfere). It is also the difference between thinking about humanity as one family, and seeing humanity as opposed tribes.

The rbe idea is backed by the idea that there is no fixed human nature, as human behavior stems from environment and not from genes or any other predisposed 'nature'. This idea is widely known as the 'nature versus nurture debate'. IF human nature were fixed, and especially if it were negative (evil, unreliable, pre disposed to war), capitalism would be the ultimate systems for humans to coexist peacefully, as trade would ensure cooperation (trough specialization), with minimal subjectivity (money would ensure that nobody takes more than he deserves) and subjective government (government would automatically happen trough the workings of the free market). On the other hand IF human nature were not fixed, and would be positive (reliable, good) less the environment provided an abundance and the artificial boundaries between people would not exist (shared resources, one family as opposed to separate nations) then the market system would not be necessary, government would be possible and industry could be planned in a rational manner, just as for example a bicycle.

Then question then would be if an Rbe would be feasible. There is no experimental evidence for this, however natural resources, energy, human resources and know how, could very well said to be abundantly available. If human living standards rely only on those pillars, the possibilities would in theory be near infinite. To give some examples:

• Human resources

400,000 engineers a year in China alone. 300,000 in India.

• Energy

Our sun provides 489,000 TW when we use 15 TW.

• Natural resources

100 ppm of our planet's outer crust is copper, in pounds: a 3 with 19 zero's, iron there is 500 times more of. Materials that are even scarcer could at some point be harvested in outer space. Only half a percent of our planet's water is usable and readily available. Solar technology could free up the 98% that's salty.

• Know how

Know how is vast and ever expanding, in an exponential fashion.

Then the question would be if it would be manageable to turn these resources into high living standards, without the (supposed) decentralization that a market system provides. The task might simply be to daunting for humans to pull off. Inefficiencies in large organisational structures such as governments and government sub divisions even in smaller countries are infamous and well documented. Wouter Drucker

I'll provide sources later, and think of a way to put this in, with the help of you guys wouter.drucker (talk)