Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Can anyone give an example of an act that has no selfish motives? This would be a selfless act.

Blowing up a building full of people you don't know and never taking credit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Blowing up a building full of people you don't know and never taking credit.

And what would be the reason?

lol

the problem with the question is one can subjectively ascribe selfish motives to other's actions without any knowledge of why they do what they do. It is actually a very powerful cognitive bias in human perception. We are more likely to explain our own actions by external factors, and other's by internal motivation.

Rand would describe something like a man going into medicine as a profession instead of music, which he wants to go into, because of family pressure. Sure, you can argue that he still gains something personally from being a doctor or following his family, but sort of intuitively, doing something against your will so that you fulfill someone else's wishes is not selfish. That there might be benefit does not mean that there must be volition.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
And what would be the reason?

None. That makes it selfless. I was just trying to head off the mushy goodie two-shoes answers people might come up with.

If I gave a fluffy puppy to a unicorn, laced with cherry gumdrops that sparkled like stars when you smile at them, and then the unicorn smiled at me and we pranced in the field with the cheerful faeries in the land of all pleasant thoughts.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was just trying to head off the mushy goodie two-shoes answers people might come up with.

Mission. Fail.

...also cosign inamilist. I think. It sounds intellectual without actually answering the question. Therefore I approve.

313

Impregnating a single woman who wants a baby while she's asleep, and then taking off.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...also cosign inamilist. I think. It sounds intellectual without actually answering the question. Therefore I approve.

313

I thought I answered the question...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If I gave a fluffy puppy to a unicorn, laced with cherry gumdrops that sparkled like stars when you smile at them, and then the unicorn smiled at me and we pranced in the field with the cheerful faeries in the land of all pleasant thoughts.



Mission. Fail.

Land of pleasant thoughts? Sounds like something that benefits you!

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

the problem with the question is one can subjectively ascribe selfish motives to other's actions without any knowledge of why they do what they do. It is actually a very powerful cognitive bias in human perception. We are more likely to explain our own actions by external factors, and other's by internal motivation.

Rand would describe something like a man going into medicine as a profession instead of music, which he wants to go into, because of family pressure. Sure, you can argue that he still gains something personally from being a doctor or following his family, but sort of intuitively, doing something against your will so that you fulfill someone else's wishes is not selfish. That there might be benefit does not mean that there must be volition.

That is not completely selfless. He became a doctor because he did not want his family to be unhappy with him. So in a way he still thought about his own feelings.

Hitting women when they're hysterical.

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/egoism/

Giving someone something that means alot to you expecting nothing in return.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
That is not completely selfless. He became a doctor because he did not want his family to be unhappy with him. So in a way he still thought about his own feelings.

hence my point

because we assume human volition, there is no situation where a person acts when you cannot ascribe some sense of self-motivation. Its close to being tautological.

In any realistic sense, the example Rand gave is sufficient, because you can't be said to know more about someone's motivations than they do themselves, especially in the given situation.

There is no such thing as selflessness, and there never will be. Every action can be led back to selfish motives through the mediums of God, Guilt and Greed.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
There is no such thing as selflessness, and there never will be. Every action can be led back to selfish motives through the mediums of God, Guilt and Greed.

Unless you're nuts or just happen to be a nice person.

Selflessness, in the context I think we mean to use, means acting outside of what is directly benefical to you.

However, you wouldn't do it if you didn't think it was for the best, so in a sense it is still not "selfless" because you do it because of something you hold in esteem.

You question is too broad is what I'm getting @.

Actually I find this general view that selfless actions don't exist because you are always in some way satisfying something you want to do as... a very shallow one. It confuses the motivation for an action with the reward, which is actually a false connection.

If I do something selfless, I do it because it is right. The fact that that makes me feel good is actually entirely irrelevant to that and in no way stops it being selfless.

Those behaviors which reap a primary benefit to yourself first and foremost, especially if there is detriment to others = selfish. Eg: I'm on a deserted island starving, another person with me is starving; I also have two coconuts and keep both for myself.

Those behaviors which reap a primary benefit to others first and foremost, especially if there is some detriment to yourself = selfless. Eg, I share one of my coconuts. Though I feel good about sharing (a secondary benefit), I will still be hungry. But at least the two of us won't be starving. This would be even more pronounced if I give both coconuts to the other person.

I also think it depends on the definition. I think it is evident that every conscious action a person does is inspired by a reason which in one way or another relates positively to their wishes, feelings and opinions. Contrary to what I argued not too long ago though, I wouldn't say that this means that all actions are equally "selfish", I believe a definition that comes close to what we commonly see as selfless acts is very useful and can be separated from other actions. So, though I think it is a fact that everyone does what they want most (for themselves), I don't think it's a revelation that one should lose sleep over.

In a way, nothing is selfless. If you spend a lot of energy to save a loved one, it is because YOU would feel sad if he/she died. If you founded a charity for homeless, it is because YOU feel sad and remorse for them.

But really, there are a lot of examples.

what about saving(or trying to save) the life of a complete stranger, knowing that you may very well get hurt or die.

Originally posted by jalek moye
what about saving(or trying to save) the life of a complete stranger, knowing that you may very well get hurt or die.

You may get accolades from society or your own moral system if you succeed.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
If you spend a lot of energy to save a loved one, it is because YOU would feel sad if he/she died.
Yes...that's how I'd feel, but that wouldn't be my main motivation. I'd save a stranger's life if I could, simply because his life is everything to him just like mine is to me.

That most of us feel good when we're kind...at the very least, this behavior and emotion set have societal survival advantages.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Can anyone give an example of an act that has no selfish motives? This would be a selfless act. I haven't read any of the other posts but will give my opinion to it.

Keeping your mouth shut and suffering in silence knowing that you did the good deed or the good will or set in motion the reaction that caused something that was possitive.

BUT maybe doing something that makes you feel good is a form of being selfish???

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I haven't read any of the other posts but will give my opinion to it. Just read my first one.

BUT maybe doing something that makes you feel good is a form of being selfish??? If your main motivation is to feel good, then yes. Helping another person was just the means to an emotional ends.

If your main motivation was to help someone, then no. The good feeling was a fringe benefit.

Yeah but technically you wanted to help that person, YOU did, you are trying to satisfy your want.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Yeah but technically you wanted to help that person, YOU did, you are trying to satisfy your want. My wanting is secondary, a means to the ends of saving the other person. Being selfish is the opposite: your act of saving another's life is now the means to the ends of personal satisfaction.

In truth, no human action is literally selfless, since a self, a person, is always involved. But that doesn't mean every act is selfish.

I think doing something for someone knowing that they would appreciate it or needs it is selfless. Even a kind word to them. Just to say something uplifting. Doing extra that wasn't expected as they would say. Walking the extra mile and they don't know you did it in some cases.

Making people feel good just for the fact that you like to make people feel good about their lives.

when u give your life on the spur of the moment to save another life...that is selfless....spur of the moment is the key IMO

Everything we do affects us whether we know it or not. Selfish would be for something so it directly affects you, selfless would be indirect.

As well as the whole motivation thing.

Should research undonditional love.

Should research undonditional love. ????
I got nothing on google..lol...
just pickin cause I happen to notice the typo...Im an a$$hole sorry

lol

what research into unconditional love specifically?

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Can anyone give an example of an act that has no selfish motives? This would be a selfless act.

Self sacrifice to save another?

but it has to be spur of the moment...that to me makes it selfless..no time to think you just do it...a child about to be hit by a bus and you push them out of the way and get smushed without even thinking...bad neighborhood and there is a driveby shooting you shield the person closest to you without thinking...down to the last shot of booze and you offer it up to your buddy without thinking now thats really selfless..lol

Originally posted by inimalist
what research into unconditional love specifically? Unconditional love generally. When we collectively love everything else, we will be selfless.

It'd probably work better when you realise our entire lives are interdependent on everything else in existence. We can't live without plants, oxygen, or other people. So, it's critical to look after those things.

I can agree with that.

by the way deja vu I have repeatedly used the deja moo phrase and its always a huge laugh!! that is classic!!!! working in a bar it is super kewl!

In a real bar???


Yes, I am so full of knowlege!

Nothing is selfless. Human beings are self centered creatures and that's what took us so far.

I don't agree, sorry.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I don't agree, sorry.

Because you're blindly idealistic.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I don't agree, sorry. Luckily fact is not influenced by your opinion at all.

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).





Also, I find Diana dull and extremely overrated.

Just thought I'd throw that in there

Originally posted by Bardock42
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. 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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. That is true, but selfishness means deliberate for your own self, and people do not do that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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. They won't really need a reward. If I have everything I want, and doing something I love, I do not need a reward.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The only way your ideas could work is if the whole psychology of the human race is fundamentally changed, 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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). 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, I find Diana dull and extremely overrated.

Just thought I'd throw that in there Hotter than Camilla.

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 SIDIOUS 66
Can anyone give an example of an act that has no selfish motives? This would be a selfless act.

Parents?

Talking about proper parents.

Originally posted by GCG
Parents?

Talking about proper parents. They don't "love" their kids. They wouldn't feel bad if something bad happened to them? They don't feel good when they see the joy in their eyes? They don't feel a compulsion or duty to take care of their children?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I suppose it is a matter of definition. I mean they certainly do it to satisfy their own wants...Yeah.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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. How would you define selfish?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, the problem is getting everything they want though. Which I don't see happening atm, and especially not if you abolish monetary values. 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not talking about culture. I talk about more fundamental human behaviour...which might not be possible to overcome on a grand scale. Well, 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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?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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, absolutely.

Still a dog. Yeah, but she'd've been a great queen.

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 Bardock42
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? 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.

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.

I'm not sure exactly. This is the problems with delayed replies.

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 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.

~Sado
P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy- altruism#Five_Studies_Testing_Two_New_Egoistic_Alt
ernatives_to_the_Empathy-Altruism_Hypothesis

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 Bardock42
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? 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.

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 Bardock42
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. How many times do I have to tell you?

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 Bardock42
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. Yes, 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.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And I am not saying it will forever be necessary, but it is now, No it isn't.

That's what I've been saying this whole time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
and it doesn't deserve the hate it gets, and you haven't given one reason why a moneyless society would be better.
No recessions
No debt
No slavery
No unwanted jobs
No scam artists
No/less paranoia
More open society
No scandals
A greater realisation of society
No wasting time on bills and advertising
Freedom to do what you want
Just off the top of my head.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And why do you think people create technology? You think Steve Jobs had the good of humankind in mind? No, he wanted MONEY. If he wanted money, why didn't he just steal it or go into advertising?

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.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How many times do I have to tell you?

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.

Sounds conspiracy theory-ish. Have you proof that we have machines that can do that? And who builts and maintains the machines (if they even exist).

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, 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.

Again, it would be interesting to see some evidence of that ability. Are you saying we have the technology now to have every person in the world lay down their job and live equally or better than we do now?


Originally posted by lord xyz
No it isn't.

That's what I've been saying this whole time.

I know I have been saying that. I "disagreed".

Originally posted by lord xyz

No recessions
No debt
No slavery
No unwanted jobs
No scam artists
No/less paranoia
More open society
No scandals
A greater realisation of society
No wasting time on bills and advertising
Freedom to do what you want
Just off the top of my head.

Why would there be no slavery? There would be ups and downs in the economy anyways (well mostly downs), money is not the cause of recession. There would be scam artists. Why would there be a more open society?

And most of that stuff is utopic at best. Yes, your magical wonderland you imagined works better than the free market system that actually exists, but that's because it takes no real life factors into account. If it was really to be implemented in the near future it would only end in ruins though.


Originally posted by lord xyz
If he wanted money, why didn't he just steal it or go into advertising?

Because there are laws against the first, and he thought he could make more than with the second. Though, really, most of his money is based on advertising.

Originally posted by lord xyz
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.

No, money doesn't create either of that. Money is just a value we assign to every type of work. That's it. It doesn't create corruption, that exists in a moneyless system and yes, it doesn't create incentives...that also exists in a moneyless system. What is does is give us one united idea of what we want to achieve and what we'll have to do to get it.

I am not saying that everyone lusts for money solely, but money makes a lot of things a lot easier...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds conspiracy theory-ish. Have you proof that we have machines that can do that? And who builts and maintains the machines (if they even exist).The people who build machines anyway. Granted, this isn't consistent with my machines will do the jobs we don't like argument, but there are jobs we do like, and we do those, the jobs we don't like won't need to be done.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, it would be interesting to see some evidence of that ability. Are you saying we have the technology now to have every person in the world lay down their job and live equally or better than we do now? well, yeah. We don't have that quality of life currently because people are unaware of the state we're in and are only looking to make cash, not a better world.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know I have been saying that. I "disagreed".No, you've just asked questions and called me retarded because you don't like or understand my answers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would there be no slavery? There would be ups and downs in the economy anyways (well mostly downs), money is not the cause of recession. There would be scam artists. Why would there be a more open society? Money creates secrecy since the game is to make money and everyone's after your money. No slavery because there's no reason to do something someone else says, people do what they want in the venus project. Scam artists won't exist because everyone's working for common good, not selfish gain. Why? Because of the realisation that we are all one.

It's great how you never acknowledge you're wrong. Like now, you haven't acknowledged that recession, debt, scandals, paranoia, bills, advertising and unwanted jobs were problems in the monetary system that the venus project overcomes. You're just asking questions til you see a flaw in my argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And most of that stuff is utopic at best. Yes, your magical wonderland you imagined works better than the free market system that actually exists, but that's because it takes no real life factors into account. If it was really to be implemented in the near future it would only end in ruins though. That's because you don't understand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because there are laws against the first, and he thought he could make more than with the second. Though, really, most of his money is based on advertising. Advertising is very easy and is more money per labour. Also, lots and lots of people steal. The laws do nothing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, money doesn't create either of that. Money is just a value we assign to every type of work. That's it. It doesn't create corruption, that exists in a moneyless system and yes, it doesn't create incentives...that also exists in a moneyless system. What is does is give us one united idea of what we want to achieve and what we'll have to do to get it. Why does that have to be money? Why not common good or improving our lives? Okay, money does improve our lives, but we don't need money for that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not saying that everyone lusts for money solely, but money makes a lot of things a lot easier... I disagree heavily, and if you listened to anything I said, or read the venus project website, you'd know that.

Well, lets just agree to disagree and not get banned, shall we?


And I really didn't call you "retarded" at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, lets just agree to disagree and not get banned, shall we?


And I really didn't call you "retarded" at all. You did in the earlier debates that got us banned.

haermm

Originally posted by Bardock42
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).

Not that I've eve given this thought or anything but, why would someone who establishes a dictatorship want a "free" society?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not that I've eve given this thought or anything but, why would someone who establishes a dictatorship want a "free" society?

That's not what I said.

What Marius was saying was people wouldn't accept my society and it would only work if it was a dictatorship.

In other words, no money = communism = russia.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What Marius was saying was people wouldn't accept my society and it would only work if it was a dictatorship.

In other words, no money = communism = russia.

Well, something like that. I was more saying that without some major phlebotinum (in your case, "robots will do it", the work that is necessary atm will not be done effectively decreasing the living standards. Dictatorship might be a way of forcing people to do what is necessary for a while, but even then it doesn't work as well as the incentive that a free market gives.

And I'd appreciate if you'd call me Bardock, not everyone needs to know my name, that's why I chose the username Bardock42, rather than Marius42, so I'd prefer to be called Bardock if that's alright with you, thanks.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, something like that. I was more saying that without some major phlebotinum (in your case, "robots will do it", the work that is necessary atm will not be done effectively decreasing the living standards. Dictatorship might be a way of forcing people to do what is necessary for a while, but even then it doesn't work as well as the incentive that a free market gives.

And I'd appreciate if you'd call me Bardock, not everyone needs to know my name, that's why I chose the username Bardock42, rather than Marius42, so I'd prefer to be called Bardock if that's alright with you, thanks. How about Bird cock?

Originally posted by lord xyz
How about Bird cock? Sure, I'd just prefer if you didn't call me by my name on here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, I'd just prefer if you didn't call me by my name on here.

So...now we know your name...is there a sort of Rumpelstiltskin-esque surprise now we know?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So...now we know your name...is there a sort of Rumpelstiltskin-esque surprise now we know?
It's okay for you to know my name, or anyone really, I just don't like to be addressed as that on KMC. It implies a more personal relationship.

no doubt bardock we are online here not saying hi when we walk out and get our newspapers...you will always be bardock unless you change your username..lol..

He did that once...LOL Sooooooooooo creative was his old name....HAHAHAHA

jus noticed that..lol