Nor yours, Marius.
Self-centeredness has done nothing but hinder our development.
Religion is a set of self-centered ideas.
Monarchy is a set of self-centered people.
Rich people are tottaly self-centered.
Now you could argue that yes, popes, kings and rich people have done good things, but that's nothing compared to what could happen if they weren't there and the bad they've caused.
Warren Buffet has 62 billion dollars. What the **** does he need 62 billion dollars for, and what the **** did he do to get it? Surely King George III was a great King, taxing America and conquring Ireland was fantastic. Or how about the Inquisition? That made a big development in the world.
Or how about on a smaller scale.
The papparazzi decided taking photos to make millions was way more important than saving someone's ****ing life. Especially someone who had done so much. Are you telling me thier selfishness was good? Or their desire to make money is what human development is about?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Nor yours, Marius.
No, but I give reasons...she gives "I don't agrees".
Originally posted by lord xyz
Self-centeredness has done nothing but hinder our development.Religion is a set of self-centered ideas.
Monarchy is a set of self-centered people.
Rich people are tottaly self-centered.Now you could argue that yes, popes, kings and rich people have done good things, but that's nothing compared to what could happen if they weren't there and the bad they've caused.
Warren Buffet has 62 billion dollars. What the **** does he need 62 billion dollars for, and what the **** did he do to get it? Surely King George III was a great King, taxing America and conquring Ireland was fantastic. Or how about the Inquisition? That made a big development in the world.
Or how about on a smaller scale.
The papparazzi decided taking photos to make millions was way more important than saving someone's ****ing life. Especially someone who had done so much. Are you telling me thier selfishness was good? Or their desire to make money is what human development is about?
There are also many examples how being self-centered or just plain selfishness brought a lot of good to us. All inventors that just thirsted for their knowledge, or the people that just wanted money but incidentally created the amazing infrastructure we have now.
But it's not really the point of this thread. The point is that every deed you do, you do for a reason that you want. Whatever you do, you get something out of it.
Either way, your more communist ideas, just won't work. They can not create a thriving, stable society...because people are selfish in many aspects, they want to get ahead, and they want to be rewarded for what they do, if they do something. The only way your ideas could work is if the whole psychology of the human race is fundamentally changed, and even then, you don't know how possible that is. But with humans that we have now (and had for the last 50 000 years) you will not succeed in a moneyless, non-trade based, "altruistic" society, unless you establish a dictatorship. And even then it goes against the wants of people so much that it will be sabotaged and never function as well as a free society (on average).
[edit]Also, I find Diana dull and extremely overrated.
Just thought I'd throw that in there
Originally posted by Bardock42I don't believe inventors are self-centered...and for the same reason those are concerned about how they look aren't self-centered. They're concerned about their relation to the rest of society. Wanting to do good for society is generous.
No, but I give reasons...she gives "I don't agrees".There are also many examples how being self-centered or just plain selfishness brought a lot of good to us. All inventors that just thirsted for their knowledge, or the people that just wanted money but incidentally created the amazing infrastructure we have now.
Originally posted by Bardock42That is true, but selfishness means deliberate for your own self, and people do not do that.
But it's not really the point of this thread. The point is that every deed you do, you do for a reason that you want. Whatever you do, you get something out of it.
Originally posted by Bardock42They won't really need a reward. If I have everything I want, and doing something I love, I do not need a reward.
Either way, your more communist ideas, just won't work. They can not create a thriving, stable society...because people are selfish in many aspects, they want to get ahead, and they want to be rewarded for what they do, if they do something.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah, that's what the zeitgeist movement and the venus project is about. "Join the movement" "Redisgn of our culture". They're all over the websites if you bothered to check them out.
The only way your ideas could work is if the whole psychology of the human race is fundamentally changed,
Originally posted by Bardock42This goes back that sociey being in scarcity. Scarcity is the reason for money and trade and violence. The Venus Project tries to eliminates scarcity. Go to the website to see more.
and even then, you don't know how possible that is. But with humans that we have now (and had for the last 50 000 years) you will not succeed in a moneyless, non-trade based, "altruistic" society, unless you establish a dictatorship. And even then it goes against the wants of people so much that it will be sabotaged and never function as well as a free society (on average).
Originally posted by Bardock42Hotter than Camilla.
[edit]Also, I find Diana dull and extremely overrated.Just thought I'd throw that in there
Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't believe inventors are self-centered...and for the same reason those are concerned about how they look aren't self-centered. They're concerned about their relation to the rest of society. Wanting to do good for society is generous.
Well, I suppose it is a matter of definition. I mean they certainly do it to satisfy their own wants...
Originally posted by lord xyz
That is true, but selfishness means deliberate for your own self, and people do not do that.
Again, matter of definition, I tend to agree lately though. I do think that it is a fact that people have their own motivations in any way, but I would agree that you might want to use a different definition of selfish.
Originally posted by lord xyz
They won't really need a reward. If I have everything I want, and doing something I love, I do not need a reward.
Yeah, the problem is getting everything they want though. Which I don't see happening atm, and especially not if you abolish monetary values.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, that's what the zeitgeist movement and the venus project is about. "Join the movement" "Redisgn of our culture". They're all over the websites if you bothered to check them out.
I am not talking about culture. I talk about more fundamental human behaviour...which might not be possible to overcome on a grand scale.
Originally posted by lord xyz
This goes back that sociey being in scarcity. Scarcity is the reason for money and trade and violence. The Venus Project tries to eliminates scarcity. Go to the website to see more.
Explain to me how they would do that? I mean, the free market does eliminate a lot of scarcity, how would the Venus Project be superior at eliminating it, in your opinion?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Hotter than Camilla.
Oh, absolutely.
Still a dog.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah.
Well, I suppose it is a matter of definition. I mean they certainly do it to satisfy their own wants...
Originally posted by Bardock42How would you define selfish?
Again, matter of definition, I tend to agree lately though. I do think that it is a fact that people have their own motivations in any way, but I would agree that you might want to use a different definition of selfish.
Originally posted by Bardock42Most of what the venus project argues is we already have a lot of those things. Jaques Fresco argues we have the resources to feed and clothe and home everybody. Having to pay for those resources is what the problem is.
Yeah, the problem is getting everything they want though. Which I don't see happening atm, and especially not if you abolish monetary values.
Originally posted by Bardock42Well, ZDay is on the 15th of March which will change the fundamentals of human behaviour, but I'll agree that is a hard thing to do.
I am not talking about culture. I talk about more fundamental human behaviour...which might not be possible to overcome on a grand scale.
Originally posted by Bardock42The free market favours scarcity because scarcity = profit. The Venus Project acts to eliminate scarcity because it improves the quality of life. Roxanne Meadows and Jacque Fresco talk a lot about that in some of the films they've produced.
Explain to me how they would do that? I mean, the free market does eliminate a lot of scarcity, how would the Venus Project be superior at eliminating it, in your opinion?
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah, but she'd've been a great queen.
Oh, absolutely.Still a dog.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Most of what the venus project argues is we already have a lot of those things. Jaques Fresco argues we have the resources to feed and clothe and home everybody. Having to pay for those resources is what the problem is.
But there is a wrong thinking, he's talking about resources we have in and because of the free market. They would likely not exist as plenty without the advantages the free market gives us.
Originally posted by lord xyz
The free market favours scarcity because scarcity = profit. The Venus Project acts to eliminate scarcity because it improves the quality of life. Roxanne Meadows and Jacque Fresco talk a lot about that in some of the films they've produced.
That is not quite correct. The competition in a free market creates the abundance of stuff we have. Yes, scarcity might create profit, but profit creates competition and which actually works against the scarcity. Which is why things are not that scarce in our world.
Another problem are things that are scarce as a fact of life. The co-ordination in the Venus Project is very vague to me. How would they get stuff to anyone and who would get what and who would have to do what and why would they do it?
You know what I mean?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Unconditional love generally. When we collectively love everything else, we will be selfless.
ha, I know its been a while, but I finally have the time/motivation to go over some of this stuff, lol
can you expand on what you were trying to say here?
Selfless acts come only through loving everything?
Originally posted by Bardock42But those profits give birth to inequality and decides who gets the good lives and who doesn't. Profits are the reason the third world is so shit. It might seem that things aren't scarce, but only a few have them, so they are scarce, and that false scarcity can also be used to create even more profit, creating more indifference.
But there is a wrong thinking, he's talking about resources we have in and because of the free market. They would likely not exist as plenty without the advantages the free market gives us.That is not quite correct. The competition in a free market creates the abundance of stuff we have. Yes, scarcity might create profit, but profit creates competition and which actually works against the scarcity. Which is why things are not that scarce in our world.
Another problem are things that are scarce as a fact of life. The co-ordination in the Venus Project is very vague to me. How would they get stuff to anyone and who would get what and who would have to do what and why would they do it?
You know what I mean?
Yeah, Jacque Fresco says the resources the world has needs to be recognised as common heritage for all human beings. Looking after the whole community, which is the world. He's worked to think of a society that would be beneficial to all human beings. This competetion society we have does not look after all human beings.
ha, I know its been a while, but I finally have the time/motivation to go over some of this stuff, lolI'm not sure exactly. This is the problems with delayed replies.can you expand on what you were trying to say here?
Selfless acts come only through loving everything?
Basically, love is seeing something as good; would give you pleasure. Seeing everything as good makes you selfless, because the reason we do things is because we perceive it as good.
this is a debate in psychology too. some people suggest that "altruism" genuinely exists while others say that it's an evolutionary product of wanting to preserve our genetic code. the latter say so because people are generally more likely to:
-help their offsprings rather than their predecessors
-help their family members rather than strangers
-help strangers who look like them than those who don't
there is a theory [empathy-altruism-hypothesis] which basically our reaction to people suffering into two pattersn:
1) when confronting someone who'se suffering, we feel anxious and discomfort and so we decide to end our OWN discomfort and go out and help the guy. this is not empathy.
2) when confronting someone who'se suffering, we feel their pain and so decide to alleviate it and go out and help the guy. this is empathy.
going by this, it seems to me that selflessness does exist because selflessness could never truly exist if there was no empathy.
Originally posted by lord xyz
But those profits give birth to inequality and decides who gets the good lives and who doesn't. Profits are the reason the third world is so shit. It might seem that things aren't scarce, but only a few have them, so they are scarce, and that false scarcity can also be used to create even more profit, creating more indifference.
I think you have a warped view of the free market system, but it's okay, I don't want to discuss with you why the free market is good (which I believe it is), I want to discuss why you think your (or Jacque's) system would be better and how. And I am referring to talking about specific examples and problems (even those that are solved in the free market already, because we can't assume that your system would have those problems solved as well...that might even be problems you can't think of at the moment)
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, Jacque Fresco says the resources the world has needs to be recognised as common heritage for all human beings. Looking after the whole community, which is the world. He's worked to think of a society that would be beneficial to all human beings. This competetion society we have does not look after all human beings.
You don't reply to what I ask though, you give broad, general...almost scripted...phrases.
How would that society work? I understand that all the resources would be viewed as everyones, but how would we get the resources, who would process them and who would get which. What is it related to at all?
Originally posted by Bardock42The resources are there for everyone. We have the materials to give everyone already, we don't need to process anything new, we have it so everyone can have a car, a house a hot meal. The only thing left is to actually give it to them. Why don't we, it would cost us, and then our lives would be shit.
I think you have a warped view of the free market system, but it's okay, I don't want to discuss with you why the free market is good (which I believe it is), I want to discuss why you think your (or Jacque's) system would be better and how. And I am referring to talking about specific examples and problems (even those that are solved in the free market already, because we can't assume that your system would have those problems solved as well...that might even be problems you can't think of at the moment)You don't reply to what I ask though, you give broad, general...almost scripted...phrases.
How would that society work? I understand that all the resources would be viewed as everyones, but how would we get the resources, who would process them and who would get which. What is it related to at all?
This whole concept of needing money to have a good life is absolute shit. Money is worthless, and is a tool of the elite. We are the only species where the few rule the many, it's ridiculous we put up with it.
The society would work because we don't need money. What liberates us and improves our lives is technology. That is what we need.
Originally posted by lord xyz
The resources are there for everyone. We have the materials to give everyone already, we don't need to process anything new, we have it so everyone can have a car, a house a hot meal. The only thing left is to actually give it to them. Why don't we, it would cost us, and then our lives would be shit.
Resources are there because farmers get up every day at 6 and work on the field, because lorry drivers drive through the whole country bringing the produce all over the country, because supermarket employees take it in and stack it up for everyone to get, because bakers and cooks work with the produce they get to create ready food for us.
Why would they do all that in your system? I know in mine...greed for money...in yours? Nah, I'd rather sit on the couch watch TV (well, I guess there probably won't be TV cause there's lots of shit jobs involved in making TV Shows...but I'd still rather sit around and do stuff I like than work hard 10 hours a day.
Originally posted by lord xyz
This whole concept of needing money to have a good life is absolute shit. Money is worthless, and is a tool of the elite. We are the only species where the few rule the many, it's ridiculous we put up with it.
We are actually not the only species where the few rule the many...we are the only ones that have a whole system beyond "whoever beats the shit out of the other best", but still. Money was not created to oppress, though it now can and does get used for it, it got created because you needed to trade with other people to survive, because no one wants to give up what they made for nothing. Money is the sole reason we (and I mean all of us even 3rd world people in Africa) live so much better than we would in the 16th century....money was the tool behind the whole advancement of the human race in the last 300 years. We wouldn't have Internet and we wouldn't be talking now if it wasn't for money.
And I am not saying it will forever be necessary, but it is now, and it doesn't deserve the hate it gets, and you haven't given one reason why a moneyless society would be better.
Originally posted by lord xyz
The society would work because we don't need money. What liberates us and improves our lives is technology. That is what we need.
And why do you think people create technology? You think Steve Jobs had the good of humankind in mind? No, he wanted MONEY.
Maybe to be creative.
I enjoy my life and I give to others without asking anything in return. I don't even care if they know it is I that is doing them a favor. One time ea neighbor found a 50 ...I knew that it was mine and that it blew out of my pocket. I sure did need that 50, when her daughter found it I said, "well, it must be meant for you...maybe from god.l" I said god because they believed in that.
Originally posted by Bardock42How many times do I have to tell you?
Resources are there because farmers get up every day at 6 and work on the field, because lorry drivers drive through the whole country bringing the produce all over the country, because supermarket employees take it in and stack it up for everyone to get, because bakers and cooks work with the produce they get to create ready food for us.Why would they do all that in your system? I know in mine...greed for money...in yours? Nah, I'd rather sit on the couch watch TV (well, I guess there probably won't be TV cause there's lots of shit jobs involved in making TV Shows...but I'd still rather sit around and do stuff I like than work hard 10 hours a day.
WE HAVE MACHINES THAT CAN DO THAT. Yes, right now, we have machines that farm the crops that frees humans from doing that kind of stuff. Listen!!! WE HAVE MACHINES TO DO THAT. But society doesn't want us to know that. Society would rather we work for money we don't even need.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yes, because it was relevant at that time; a time of scarcity. Now we have a self sustaining world, or we will in the not too distant future.
We are actually not the only species where the few rule the many...we are the only ones that have a whole system beyond "whoever beats the shit out of the other best", but still. Money was not created to oppress, though it now can and does get used for it, it got created because you needed to trade with other people to survive, because no one wants to give up what they made for nothing. Money is the sole reason we (and I mean all of us even 3rd world people in Africa) live so much better than we would in the 16th century....money was the tool behind the whole advancement of the human race in the last 300 years. We wouldn't have Internet and we wouldn't be talking now if it wasn't for money.
Originally posted by Bardock42No it isn't.
And I am not saying it will forever be necessary, but it is now,
That's what I've been saying this whole time. 😐
Originally posted by Bardock42[list]
and it doesn't deserve the hate it gets, and you haven't given one reason why a moneyless society would be better.
Originally posted by Bardock42If he wanted money, why didn't he just steal it or go into advertising?
And why do you think people create technology? You think Steve Jobs had the good of humankind in mind? No, he wanted MONEY.
Money doesn't create incentive, it creates corruption. Steve Jobs had making people happy in mind, that's how Pixar came to be. Either that or it was someone elses idea and he had a corrupt mind.