RBE10K/Вопросы/глобальная-РОЭ против локальной-РОЭ, изобилие, худшие разнообразие и технологии

Дискуссия состоялась 10 февраля 2012 года. Отличный материал для ЧаВО

Активист ПВ (Проект Венера) ставит проблему сравнения ПВ и RBE10K в подходе к внедрению системы, вопросах изобилия, свободы передвижения, разнообразия, худших технологий.

Post: Видео на YouTube о так называемых "локальных РОЭ"

YouTube post: Peter Joseph and Roxanne Meadows on "local RBEs"

На ролике выше Питер Джозеф и Роксанна Медоуз, говорят о том, что нужен глобальный проект и локальные проекты не являются решением проблем (прим. пер).

Проект Rbe10k

Их мнение хорошо известно всем локальным проектам РОЭ, и оно бы имело вес, если целью локальных проектов было просто спрятаться от системы. Однако, что они не могут себе представить — это количество локальных РОЭ, которые будут возникать повсюду, а также потенциал совместных усилий в создании документации, кооперации, взаимной поддержки и медиа-эффекта, который создаст реальное начинание в виде десятитысячного самообеспечивающегося города, обильно производящего произведения искусства и наводняющего социальные сети картинами, видео, музыкой, драмами и комедиями, графическим дизайном, который сотрудничает с хорошо известными open source проектами и возможно даже с университетами. При поддержке лауреатов Нобелевской премии и других персон большого значения. Это может вызвать взрыв интереса (а может и нет, так как это эксперимент, он может пройти незамеченным). Его арт-произведения могут стать вирусными. Это может вызвать гигантский импульс интереса, сравнимый или даже больший чем после выхода Zeitgeist: Addendum. Только время покажет!

Томас А. Андерсон: Настоящая РОЭ против так называемой локальной РОЭ.

Вот как я вижу проблему: даже если вам удасться построить так называемое «локальное РОЭ-сообщество», оно не будет иметь ничего общего с настоящей РОЭ. Поэтому информационный повод, который вы создадите своим сообществом будет вести в ложном направлении. Потому что он будет говорить людям: «смотрите, вот как выглядит РОЭ», а это неправда.

И, кстати говоря, вы не должны называть это «РОЭм» (модель РОЭ), так как то, что вы пытаетесь построить это не МОДЕЛЬ, не так ли?

Бредли Накагава

Локальные РОЭ имеют смысл. Существует разница между сетевой структурой и иерархической.

Проект Rbe10k

Конечно, мы не пытаемся построить модель, точно также как мы не пытаемся построить экономику. Мы пытаемся ИСПОЛЬЗОВАТЬ модель экономики, основанной на ресурсах вместо торговли, создать сообщество не основанное на погоне за прибылью. В терминах РОЭм, дело такого рода нигде точно незадокументировано (если вы знаете, где оно задокументировано, кроме как на rbem.org, пожалуйста, дайте нам знать! Это будет ОГРОМНАЯ ценность, нам нужно ОПИСАНИЕ этого, а не РАЗГОВОР ОБ ЭТОМ, так что, пожалуйста, не делайте того, что часто делают сторонники ПВ, кидая ссылку на http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy, потому что определение там слишком неопределённое для того чтобы извлечь оттуда какую-то значительную академическую ценность).

Для того чтобы все (включая вас) знали на что будет похоже поселение на принципах РОЭм, первостепенно иметь консенсус о чётком определении того чем является и чем не является РОЭм. И эта информация, насколько нам известно, хоть и не в полном виде и не до конца согласованном виде, расположена в rbem.org Wiki. Принимая во внимание тот факт, что не существует консенсусного определения РОЭм, мы считаем, то, что вы или любой другой декларируете как РОЭ\РОЭм, это основано не на фактах, а на мнении, и это мнение само по себе одно из многих общих характеристик, которое не охватывает полностью концепцию РОЭм.

Я с радостью скромно приглашаю вас помочь нам в выработке окончательного описания РОЭ\РОЭм (http://rbem.org/wiki/RBEM), тщательно задокументированного со ссылками на значимые, релевантные и уважаемые источники, и устранить элемент субъективности раз и навсегда из концепции РОЭ\РОЭм, которая уже на протяжении долгого времени остаётся расплывчатой.

Наша инициатива гордится наличием проекта РОЭМ поселения и стратегии основанной на максимально точном доступном описании РОЭМ (опять же, исходя из наших знаний), и мы действуем почти без противоречий (между стратегией и ей реализацией — прим. пер) Противоречия несущественны и обсуждаемы. Так как ПВ столкнётся с теми же противоречиями в своём осуществлении, ведь не будет возможности мгновенно перепрыгнуть из рыночной экономики к глобальной РОЭ мгновенно, этот процесс займёт определённое время.

Проект RBE10K также является глобальной долговременной инициативой РОЭ (42 года, учитывая два года планирования эксперимента, и заканчивая созданием глобальной РОЭ к 2055 году). Мы никогда не узнаем, если сдадимся сейчас, будет ли существовать РОЭ в духе ПВ к 2055 году, потому что у ПВ не только отсутствует план её внедрения (после стольких лет разработки?), но она также зависит от множества сложных и непредсказуемых внешних факторов.

Проект RBE10K имеет значительный шанс разработать надёжный план внедрения в течении в двух лет, благодаря существующим и уже доступным свободным технологиям таким как Facebook, Mediawiki, Google Plus, YouTube, Flickr, Google Search, Google Drive, Google Mail, Skype, Bettermeans, GIT, GNU/Linux, PHP, Apache Web Server, Open Source экологические модели, пермакультура, аэропоника и множеству других свободных технологий, которые мы можем немедленно использовать, чтобы получить последовательно основанное на РОЭ поселение к октябрю 2014 года. Эксперимент позволит протестировать всё дело. Во время работы эксперимента, мы будем постепенно в геометрической прогрессии двигаться к нашей цели. Многое может случиться в период между 2017 (конец эксперимента) и 2055 (конец проекта), однако мы будем непреклонно и преданно работать в решении наших задач, надеемся, что всё пойдет по плану и получится; на благо всего человечества.

Томас А. Андерсон: РОЭ определяется как глобальная

Ресурсо-ориентированная экономика всегда определялась как глобальная (по крайней мере, как почти глобальная) социо-экономическая система. Всё локальное не может быть РОЭ.

Бредли Накагава

Итак? Под «РОЭ» здесь понимается только мнение Жака Фреско. Я большой поклонник моделей изобилия в отличие от модели дефицита и сторонник ПВ и ДДВ, но глобальный центральный контроль НЕ является предварительным условием для работы модели изобилия. Также, если модель изобилия может работать, а я верю что может, то локальные модели изобилия могут дать корни, чтобы их них выросла глобальная модель. Сумасшедшая идея, что РОЭ может работать ТОЛЬКО глобально — это хрень собачья и заставляет задуматься кто так влияет на Жака Фреско и кто хочет получить глобальный центральный контроль.

Томас А. Андерсон: определение РОЭ от Жака Фреско

«Под «РОЭ» здесь понимается только мнение Жака Фреско»

Это неверно. Я говорю только о том, что имеет смысл, и меня не колышет мнение Фреско. Проблема в том, что локальное сообщество просто НЕ МОЖЕТ осуществлять те вещи, которые НАСТОЯЩАЯ РОЭ может, например:

• в РОЭ люди имеют возможность путешествовать по планете, жить в разных местах и т. д. В локальном сообществе люди ограничены одним местом.
• в РОЭ существует динамическая экономика спроса и предложения, что позволяет существовать индивидуализированным продуктам и индивидуальным образам жизни. В локальном сообществе из нескольких тысяч человек будет невозможно создавать индивидуализированные продукты, в локальном сообществе экономика будет гораздо более централизованно-плановой и однообразной.
• в РОЭ может существовать очень высокий технологический уровень, потому что каждое место в рамках глобальной РОЭ будет иметь доступ к любой технологии на планете. В локальном сообществе, будет не возможно производить на местном уровне, например, микропроцессоры, так что их придётся либо импортировать (посредством денег!) из окружающего мира (что означает отсутствие безденежной экономики), либо экономика будет низкотехнологичной.

И это только основные отличия между РОЭ и локальным сообществом. Следовательно называть локальльное сообщество РОЭ бессмысленно.

Проект RBE10K

Когда вы говорите о «низкотехнологичности», на что вы ссылаетесь? На какие параметры? Низкотехнологично относительно современных технических возможностей? Да. Низкотехнологичность относительно возможностей 70-х годов, когда Фреско по телевидению заявил, что «мы располагаем технологиями, чтобы осуществить РОЭ прямо сейчас»? Нет. Мы будем использовать гораздо более высокие технологии чем тогда. Гораздо ГОРАЗДО более высокие. Мы будем разве что низкобюджетными, но высокотехнологичными (согласно этому параметру, что довольно честно, как заявил Фреско ЛИЧНО).

Томас А. Андерсон: Глобальное/локальное и изобилие

«глобальный центральный контроль НЕ является предварительным условием для работы модели изобилия»

Глобальный контроль может быть идеей Фреско, но это не имеет смысла для экономики спроса и предложения.

«Также, если модель изобилия может работать, а я верю что может, то локальные модели изобилия могут дать корни, чтобы их них выросла глобальная модель.»

Конечно, но до тех пор пока модель локальна, она не может быть РОЭ по определению.

«Сумасшедшая идея, что РОЭ может работать ТОЛЬКО глобально — это хрень собачья и заставляет задуматься кто так влияет на Жака Фреско и кто хочет получить глобальный центральный контроль».

Теперь вы скатываетесь в безумную конспирологическую теорию. Я даже не говорю, что «РОЭ может работать только глобально». Я говорю только что термин «РОЭ» ОПРЕДЕЛЯЕТСЯ как глобальная система. Конечно, локальные сообщество могут РАБОТАТЬ. Но термин «РОЭ» к ним не применим. Вы понимаете разницу?

«Конечно, мы не пытаемся построить модель, точно также как мы не пытаемся построить экономику. Мы пытаемся ИСПОЛЬЗОВАТЬ модель экономики, основанной на ресурсах вместо торговли, создать сообщество не основанное на погоне за прибылью.»

Вы продолжаете использовать термин «РОЭм» некорректно, когда говорите:

«Их мнение хорошо известно всем локальным проектам РОЭ, и оно бы имело вес, если целью локальных проектов было просто спрятаться от системы.»

Bradly Nakagawa

"* in an RBE, people have the freedom to travel the planet, live in different places, and so on. in a localized community, people are restricted to one place."

So during the transition phase, we'll have to still use money in some places. So what? We use dollars where I live, but that doesn't mean I can't visit Japan because they use Yen. "When in Rome..." If it's a solid model, it'll expand organically. It only needs to be imposed upon everybody if the idea sucks. I don't think that's the case here.

"in a localized community of a few thousand people, it won't be possible to create individualized products"

Again, only at first during the transitional phase. But so what? We can still take care of the easy stuff: Food, clothes, shelter, transportation, entertainment, etc. and then add continuously from there. We want it to be a dynamic model, so even far after the transition phase, new and more individualized products will be added. Localized or global, this is a wash.

"in a localized community, you can't locally produce things like microprocessors"

Why not?

"what i'm saying is that the TERM "Resource-Based Economy" is DEFINED as a global system."

Okay. But to me the term sounds pretty self defining, and "global" isn't anywhere in the term.

The Rbe10k Project

RBE10K will focus on ensuring there's abundance to cover all needs, as per what the RBE10K Project plan will establish (by emergence and consensus) that are needs to be covered (except a very few exceptional cases like a fully functional hospital capable of making complex operations, for example, as a trade of to be capable of implementing in a very short term). RBE10K Project will enable and guarantee full freedom, within the community. The volunteers who move to any of its communities will understand this, and will understand that they have the freedom to go back to their homes. Freedom to move about will be gained, again, as saturation of the planet with RBE10K settlements reaches certain tipping point. RBE10K will have extensive technology, including high Internet bandwidth, tablet computers for each volunteer, an automated system of intelligent management of available resources, highly effective and complex machinery from Open Source Ecology, 3D sand and plastic printers, eventually and possibly very soon also 3D semiconductor printers, machinery for processing food, for doing laundry, for extracting oil, for making soap, for making thread, for making cloth, for making wood from pulp, for growing plants (e.g. Hydroponic Garden Carousel, Omega Garden), etc. Other things: all that you can imagine, we're likely to easily come back with a wealth of examples, just like we've just done in this message.

Thomas A. Anderson: Documentation vs Videos, Real RBE, Global vs Local, freedom, travel, technology

"In terms of an RBEM, the issue with it is that it is not properly documented anywhere (if you know where it is properly documented, other than in rbem.org itself, please point it out to us! It would be of MAJOR value!"

Watch all the videos on the official TZM youtube channel. those are hundreds of hours of detailed documentation.

"so please don't do the obvious thing TVP supporters keep doing"

I am not a TVP supporter. TVP is very limited in their views, and they are an ungrateful bunch.

"Considering there is no clearly consensuated definition of it, we believe that whatever you or anyone else declares not to be fit for an RBE/RBEM, is not based on evidence, but on opinion, and that alone is one of the widely agreed characteristics that actually do not befit an RBEM mindset."

This is just a weak attempt at belittling me.

If you have missed the fact that from the start, the RBEM has always been a GLOBAL model, then you should pay closer attention.

A localized community simply CAN NOT fulfill many of the things that a REAL RBE does. some examples:

• in an RBE, people have the freedom to travel the planet, live in different places, and so on. in a localized community, people are restricted to one place.
• in an RBE, there is a dynamic economy of supply and demand, which allows for very individualistic products and lifestyles (example: there can be 100 different flavors of soy yoghurt available). in a localized community of a few thousand people, it won't be possible to create a great number of individualized products, it will have to be much more centrally planned and uniformed (it won't be economically feasible to create 100 different flavors of soy yoghurt in a community of a few thousand people).
• in an RBE, there can be a very high technological level, because every place within the global RBE has access to any technology available on the planet. in a localized community, you can't locally produce things like microprocessors, so it will either need to import (with money!) those things from the outside (which means it's not a moneyless economy at all), or it will be rather low-tech.

these are only a few of the major differences between an RBE and a localized community. overall, a localized community will never be able to deliver the levels of freedom, abundance and technology that an RBE can provide. therefore, calling a localized community an "RBE" doesn't make sense, because it sends the wrong message. it tells people "look, this is what an RBE is", when in actuality an RBE is 1000 times more.

Calling a localized community an "RBE" is actually bad advertising.

I understand that you are so in love with your project that your self-critical thinking abilities are probably weakened. but please try to see what i'm saying.

"and eliminate the component of subjectivity once and for all from the concept of an RBE/RBEM, which has remained unchallengedly vague for way too long"

There has never been any vague-ness about the fact that an RBE is a global system. you're just making it vague by calling a local community an "RBE".

"The RBE10K Project is also a Global RBEM initiative over time (42 years, counting the two of the planning for the experiment, i.e. finishing with a Global RBE by 2055)"

Making such time predictions is ridiculous and makes you look like fools. if you think you can predict a time-frame for a global RBE, you're delusional.

I think your main problem is that you're trying to skip the most important step on the way to an RBE: the global value shift. you think you can skip right ahead to an RBE by creating a community of a few thousand relatively rich people (i consider them relatively rich if they have 10k USD to spare). what you're likely to end up with is a low-tech, centrally planned commune that will be NOTHING like an RBE.

Bradly Nakagawa

I still don't see why you're so hung up on global or nothing.

Thomas A. Anderson> i am not. it seems you're not reading or not understanding what i'm saying.

The latter's true enough, but I've read this entire (lengthy) thread.

The Rbe10k Project: No such things as a REAL RBE

There is no such thing as a REAL RBE. RBE is a symbol, coined by Jacque Fresco. A symbol with a general (and pretty vague) meaning attached. A symbol that has become popularised and took a life of its own, and of which its meaning has been accrued by the collective of the supporters of the vague but inspiring comments of Jacque Fresco first in Designing the Future, and popularised by Peter Joseph with HIS interpretation of Fresco's vague picture of the idea. TZM, being horizontal and voluntary, took that symbol, picked and chose bits and pieces from Fresco's original vague idea, PJ's more well defined picture of it based on his own personal understanding, and the chapters continued distorting and evolving the concept, always from subjective personal understandings. The lack of a concerted and agreed accurate description allows for this kind of mess, and when you say REAL RBE, you're actually not talking about anything specific, but your own personal and subjective understanding based on whatever you've seen and read. There is no such thing as a REAL RBE. There are only concerted understandings in various circles, general agreements about phrases that have been repeated by Fresco over and over again (as if that was an accurate description of the whole thing).

All the statements you made in your bullet points are mere assumptions based on your personal understanding and hope, based on no concrete source (that we know of, if there is such a source, please share it with us and we'll enrich our definition with it, making it even more accurate). Your first bullet point will be possible when the saturation of RBE10K settlements is significant enough to permit such freedom of movement, maybe toward the 2040's. Second bullet point: Completely accurate description of one of the features of the RBE10K Project objectives for each and every one of its settlements. Third bullet point: applicable to RBE10K Project depending on saturation of the planet with settlements, and/or availability of such technology developed in-house, which might happen at any time through shortly upcoming technologies like 3D printing of semiconductors and open source hardware (in case of TVP's proposal, such a feature would be available only at a highly uncertain time, but highly unlikely within 10 years).

The Rbe10k Project: Global/Local nomenclature

There are enough references everywhere to a Global RBE (including by TVP) to assume the Global characteristic is not implicit. How about TVP's so talked about first city? What will it be called? Semi-RBE? Local-RBE? I'd love you to point out to the documentation about that.

The predictions for a steady and consistent plan is just as absurd as the prediction that Capitalism will give up its hegemony willingly to TVP's supporters. There is no basis to believe that such thing would ever happen. Capitalism fiercely defends itself, and it is much more likely to self destroy completely than give up willingly.

The global value shift that you refer can happen as a result of many things. Activism, a movie, a country setting an example, a policy by United Nations, ...or a successful experiment showing that living without pursuit of profit, money, jobs, law, property, contracts, authority, consumerism, luxury, so-called "freedom" (the one that people believe to have when it is actually tied and limited to their purchasing power), and so forth. A successful experimental RBEM-based settlement is likely to begin tipping the balance, however, whilst a lot of enthused people about this successful experiment will begin to support TVP (and possibly a good portion will join TZM too, or just TZM, or none of them but RBE10K only) will want to move to the second city, a copy of the first, with any improvements resulting from the experience of the first. Whilst more and more people get enthused about these projects, whilst TVP keeps begging Capitalism to give up, RBE10K will continue growing (if the experiment works, of course, which it might not, or it might not even achieve a full working plan and abandon). RBE10K will support TVP actively, but will not wait for it to get started, it will continue growing exponentially as per the plan proposed to the community that so many people are supporting so enthusiastically.

The Rbe10k Project: TVP's vs RBE10K's implementation approach differences

The major difference between TVP's approach and RBE10K's approach is that TVP plans to IMPOSE a Global RBE system on everybody in the world, and the RBE10K Project plans to INVITE those who WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY wish to make the lifestyle change, as a result of the EVIDENCE they have from the media RBE10K settlements will produce and make publicly accessible. Yet, when it comes to save the Earth from ecological calamity, RBE10K is willing to support TVP, even though it is against its topmost principles of HORIZONTALITY AND VOLUNTARISM, and also against the promotion of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and SELF DETERMINATION. RBE10K will seduce, will never impose. But, given a hypothetical situation in which, say by 2035, which according to RBE10K there will be 1024 settlements (that's 100 million RBE10K villagers, in 512 old settlements, and 512 in construction, or recently finished, depending on the month of the year 2035 we're talking about, and assuming the RBE10K Project's initial plan goes well, its first experimental city meets its objectives, and the exponential creation of settlements every two years is steady and as per the intended RBE10K Project's plan currently being proposed to the RBE10K Project's supporters' community) say Capitalism actually does give up, TVP finally has come up with a viable plan, United Nations declare that The Venus Project can proceed, the governments of the world unanimously agree, TVP creates its first city (or multiple cities simultaneously, whichever way TVP's plans happens to consist of) and finishes a few cities 10 years later, by then there will be already 32,000 RBE10K cities hosting 320 million happy residents who may or may not wish to go live in the circular cities. However, RBE10K will always support TVP, just as well as it will support any other RBE initiative, and any ecological legal regulation (like http://erradicatingecocide.com initiative in the works being proposed to the United Nations), and GreenPeace, and any other "patchwork" initiative that would help slow down the progress of ecological devastation. But TVP's imposing and top-down approach will hardly be actively supported (this is an assumption) by RBE10K Project supporters, as one of the features that seems to be most popular and inspiring is that of voluntarism and horizontality, and extrapolating this evidence into the future it is fair to make the assumption that it will be one of the most respected and actively supported and protected characteristics of the RBE10K Project's settlement villagers around the world, forever.

Thomas A. Anderson: abundance, freedom, technology

Then do you not agree that a local community can NOT provide the levels of:

• abundance
• freedom
• technology
• and other things

that a global RBE can?

And therefore do you not agree that calling a local community an "RBE" is completely watering down the term "RBE"?

It's like saying "hey, we want to create a global society of abundance and freedom, and to demonstrate what we mean, we're building this restricted low-tech commune". completely idiotic.

Bradly Nakagawa

Even a fully global RBE cannot provide the same levels of all of the above of an RBE from a few years later.

Thomas A. Anderson> that is completely beside the point i'm making.

The idea is a dynamic model. Jacque talks about how future generations will come up with designs that far surpass his circular city designs. Since it's not a static system we're going for, what does it matter if it's not everything right from the get go? The longer it's around, the better it'll provide for everyone. Right?

Thomas A. Anderson> It matters because this kind of local commune wouldn't be a "step up", but rather a step DOWN for most people. it makes the idea of an RBE completely unattractive when you show people a commune with LESS FREEDOM, LESS ABUNDANCE and LESS TECHNOLOGY than they have now!

Bradly Nakagawa We see things very differently I guess.

Thomas A. Anderson> that's just a cop-out now. don't try to make this a "matter of opinion". if you can disprove what i'm saying, do so. if you can't, then i guess what i'm saying is correct.

Religious fanatics make that same argument. I'm fine with your guess and have nothing to prove.

Thomas A. Anderson> I see, so you're out of arguments and have moved on to ad hominem attacks.

The Rbe10k Project

"hey, we want to create a global society of abundance and freedom, and to demonstrate what we mean, we're building this restricted low-tech commune". completely idiotic.

It is like saying "hey, we want to create a castle, and demonstrate we can achieve it, but our budget only enables us for a medium size truck, so we'll bring the first layer of rocks and mortar and build the first round, and go fetch more rocks and mortar for the second round and come back, and keep doing that until the castle is finished". You: "so you'll just make a first round of rocks with mortar and leave? completely idiotic, you have to bring all rocks and mortar at once and build the castle in an instant. obviously you can't build a castle"

Thomas A. Anderson: MMS vs Local commune

Living in a local commune, as compared to living in the monetary market system today, would:

• restrict people's freedom to travel
• provide less variety and abundance
• provide a lower level of technology

How is that supposed to seem attractive to anyone, when this commune is used to "show" what an RBE would be like??

People would only think "nah, why would i want to give up my freedom, my technology and my variety?"

Bradly Nakagawa

More of an association fallacy than an ad hominem, right? But to the point that I'm done arguing, you're right.

Thomas A. Anderson> you're misquoting me. i said you're out of arguments.

Thierry Besson

I just don't buy the fact that we can get a critical mass of people just by putting out the information - I think we need to show people. There are a HUGE amount of people our there who see this as communism and I can't see them being persuaded otherwise just by marketing. Roxanne Meadow's comment about a country working in isolation doesn't quite explore the possibilities. Why would any community or nation aim to put up walls and isolate itself. The model would be abundance and that abundance should be able to spill over current borders and out of communities to neighbours as the philosophy of sharing is inherent.

The Rbe10k Project

Living in a local commune will, first and foremost, provide peace of mind to its inhabitants that they're not contributing directly or indirectly, any more than from those resources acquired from the monetary market system to kickstart the community, to any type of ecological degradation or the extinction of species, or contributing to climate change. Leaving that aside, compared to living in the monetary market system today, would:

"Restrict people's freedom to travel"

It would restrict people's ability to travel to locations outside RBE10K communities. The monetary market system already restrict 90+% of the world's people's freedom to travel because "in the monetary market system, a person's freedom is restricted to the person's purchasing power", and the reality today (and increasingly in the future if the inequality trends continue) is that people cannot travel anywhere other than from home to work and back, and every now and then to the beach, or the mountain, if at all.

RBE10K Project's settlement inhabitants will have the freedom to travel between RBE10K Project's settlements, nationally by truck or Wikispeed/OSE Car/OSCar/bicycle/foot to the beach, the mountains, the parks of nearby cities, street shows of nearby cities, or invited to a number of activities like sports competitions, government offices to provide gratis training or support, nearby villages to provide gratis permaculture training, nearby town's people's houses to provide gratis seminars of whatever, or support of whatever, or help with whatever (yes, jeopardizing the local monetary market economies, governments will be upset by this and may limit these actions to certain activities only). I believe my point is made. Next.

"provide less variety abundance"

The monetary market system provides a wealth of variety for the purposes of marketing, not for the purposes of health and wellbeing. RBE10K Project settlements will have a abundance and variety of sustainable goods according to the carrying capacity of its land's resources, and the needs of its people, according to the emerged and consensuated documented list of needs (has TVP come up with a comprehensive list of these yet? RBE1OK Project will aim at having one ready in 18 months from now, at most. Extra variety than what the community will provide in abundance according to people's needs will come from artistic expressions, including personal farming (e.g. possibly cattle will only be raised and butchered by a community subgroup of people who's comfortable killing animals, for their own consumption or to share with friends who will eat but not dare to kill or uncomfortable butchering; this is likely to be so because the E in RBE10K is from "Economy" as in "Economize", and there is no economy in raising cattle for food, so it will be most likely relegated to a personal or subgroup art and not an activity managed by the system of intelligent management of available resources). I believe the point is made.

"provide a lower level of technology"

In every RBE10K Project settlement, the technology available for personal use (e.g. tablet computers) and for sharing (e.g. desktop machines, storage servers, OSE equipment, lab equipment, etc) will be sufficient to satisfy needs, as per the emerged and consensuated criteria for Human need, and for the needs of the community to be fully self-sufficient and individually, socially, settlement-wise, and ecologically sustainable. Outside what's specific for satisfying technical and technological Human need (which by and large, in a monetary market system 90+% of the world's population live without these covered), there will be locally produced gadgetry by hobbyists, like robots using scrap metals and discarded electronics purchased in bulk during the purchasing stage immediately prior to every settlement, upon availability of course, and specialized electronics using 3D semiconductor printers.

Thomas A. Anderson: "Real" RBE, supply and demand, high technological level, bad advertising

A localized community doesn't meet the definition of an RBE, because a localized community simply CAN NOT fulfill many of the things that a REAL RBE does. some examples:

• in an RBE, people have the freedom to travel the planet, live in different places, and so on. in a localized community, people are restricted to one place.
• in an RBE, there is a dynamic economy of supply and demand, which allows for very individualistic products and lifestyles (example: there can be 100 different flavors of soy yoghurt available). in a localized community of a few thousand people, it won't be possible to create a great number individualized products, it will have to be much more centrally planned and uniformed (it won't be economically feasible to create 100 different flavors of soy yoghurt in a community of a few thousand people).
• in an RBE, there can be a very high technological level, because every place within the global RBE has access to any technology available on the planet. in a localized community, you can't locally produce things like microprocessors, so it will either need to import (with money!) those things from the outside (which means it's not a moneyless economy at all), or it will be rather low-tech.

These are only a few of the major differences between an RBE and a localized community. overall, a localized community will never be able to deliver the levels of freedom, abundance and technology that an RBE can provide. therefore, calling a localized community an "RBE" doesn't make sense, because it sends the wrong message. it tells people "look, this is what an RBE is", when in actuality an RBE is 1000 times more.

Calling a localized community an "RBE" is actually bad advertising.

The Rbe10k Project: Dynamic supply and demand

In terms of dynamic supply and demand, that's one of the features of the software of intelligent management of available resources. The different with TVP's is that TVP's will implement its system treating the Earth's resources, which is TVP's particular top-down imposing-on-everyone implementation style. RBE10K Project's implementation style, repeat, is voluntarist and horizontal. These two are unreconcilable differences, which do not relate, and TVP's RBE "flavour" will always be different to RBE10K's RBEM "flavour" in this sense. You may want to insist on a "real" RBE and a "non-real" RBE, however your insistence in this aspects speaks more about your lack of understanding of linguistics, semantics and semiotics, as RBE is a symbol, and as all symbols it doesn't carry an "implicit" meaning. Meaning is given by a cultural group when there is a general common understanding given as meaning to a given symbol. E.g. door = puerta = porta same meaning, three different words (in different languages); thong (US: small female underwear) != thong (AU: flip flops) different meaning, same word (different cultures give different meanings to the same word). Your insistence on the "real RBE" is like someone from US insisting on the "real thong", and telling the Australians that they employ the word incorrectly, that thongs are not flip flops. I hope you get the equivalence!

The Rbe10k Project: High technological level

In an RBE, as compared to a MMS, there is a "greater potential" for developing higher technology. RBE10K settlements will not remain forever hippy communes, that's simply a strategy for getting them started. As years go by, with resources available locally and exchanges (not trade) of excess resources or requested resources from other settlements, engineers and scientists living in these settlements (trained either at MMS universities, or locally at RBE10K's universities [proposed to be, like TVP's round city, part of the the town's center building, which will be the public buildings, "proposed" at this time {not decided yet} to be ten large Earthships disposed in a circle, to centralize and economize common features like water catchment, sewage treatment, etc, so that these features are scaled up and shared between all buildings]), using these resources obtained either locally (sustainably) or remotely (sustainably as well) will be able to create possibly outstanding technology.

The Rbe10k Project: Opposing binaries ("sending the wrong message")

Whilst MMS's paradigm is most influenced by property and trade, RBEM's paradigm is mostly influenced by academia and the emergent and symbiotic aspects of natural law. In terms of academia, the current paradigm, especially in what deals with the social sciences, is the Post-structuralism, which opposes and supersedes Humanism, which is the current dominant paradigm in most of society (which considering it is mostly influenced by MMS, it is not completely unreasonable to consider that the current MMS paradigm is Humanism).

Humanism is characterized by opposing binaries, such as right and wrong, real and fake/not-real, good and bad/evil, truth and lies, man and woman, adult and child. The language used by a person easily identifies what kind of dominant paradigm the person is influenced by, either MMS, or the Academic. If you observe your posts from this perspective, objectively and detached from your ego, you'll notice how often you use binary logic and opposing binaries. This is not a negative criticism, it is simply an observation that perhaps enriches your self awareness (and perhaps you prefer to believe I'm mocking you, which is not the case at all). Just stick to the evidence, analyse your posts and count the words, you'll see a significant frequency.

I tend to consider that since Academia (sciences and arts) will be the most influential aspect of of an RBEM, Academia's Post-structuralism will tend to seep into people's way of thinking, with has to do with tolerance, protection, and even embracement of differences, encouragement of individuality rather than normality, consideration of grey areas in every aspect of reality, patience, compassion, critical thinking, open mindedness, etc. Society will change significantly in this aspect, and it will come from the environment. The expectation that there will be a paradigm shift whilst the MMS is dominant may not be realistic, because the environment is the greatest influence in terms of paradigm, and MMS thrives in binaries, it has always had, for some reason (this may be speculation, though).

So, finally, in terms of "bad advertising", I prefer to consider there is no such thing. The advertising will be convenient for RBEM in general, although it would logically be a bias towards the RBE10K's fundamental values of horizontality, voluntarism, and openness, which may not be great publicity for TVP's particular implementation approach which is directed, imposing, and closed. The fact that there will be a bias in the promotion of RBE10K's particular RBEM approach integrated to the project's fundamental values, is not a bad thing per se, it is just not convenient for TVP. Well, too bad! Although RBE10K's has best wishes for TVP's, it has, obviously, a preference for its own approach, since its supporters would much rather have a not-completely-global but self-determining and respectful of differences, personal values and choices (although it wouldn't cease to invite and seduce those who prefer to remain outside, and would try to intercede and protect the environment when those who prefer to remain outside are recklessly causing havoc in the ecosystem or threatening species or the delicate atmospheric balance that we need for maximizing the chances of stable and sustainable global weather.

There will be an unavoidable competition between RBE10K and TVP, and this competition is not caused by RBE10K's open attitude, but a direct result and exclusive function of TVP's preference to remain closed and compete rather than collaborate, undermining the consistency of the system that they propose to implement. This is the most common criticism, in my experience, of frustrated ex-TVP activists and supporters, and I believe you yourself are likely to have the same (in your own words: "TVP is very limited in their views, and they are an ungrateful bunch"). People will decide, in the end, what the preference of the majority is. If TVP's approach becomes dominant and implements, it would be sad for those who don't willingly accept a change in their lifestyle, but at least the Earth will be out of danger, which is in the end the absolute most important objective that we all share in our sisterhood of RBEM implementation supporters.