Furthermore I would gladly trade my energy extraction rights to 3 white dwarfs for your 2 black holes. And I would cede 1 neutron star in exchange for a toposophic transcendency upgrade and the right to transport 0.2 solar masses of matter through my wormhole.
I’ll join Zeitgeist as soon as my robot vacuum cleaner stops falling down the steps.
The problem is obviously the fact that you’re not living in a nature commune (where there are no steps) yet. Silly consumer, conditioned by capitalist marketing to value your own selfish concerns over the greater good!
;p
I suggest one read “The Sovereign Individual” by Helio Beltrao. I quote something he said that I thought was brilliant.
“Tyranny ends where we cease to support voluntarily our own serfdom”.
After reading Helio’s essay I suggest you go to TZM site and look up the following six short articles:
Sociology, Technology, Sustainability, Spirituality, Psychology, and Synopsis.
These article, in my opinion, make for a very strong argument for a Resource Based Economy, and shed light on a viable solution
for our economic, energy, and environmental problems. I don’ see more of the same as being viable.
Then if you have time watch both movies. You may just come away with a better solution on your own that you can share with us.
No one here is particularly happy with the status quo, but the reason why people are skeptical of the Venus Project, is that it seems to be based on unsound reasoning.
Some great replies. I wanted to point out that socialist transhumanism is radically different from classical socialism and needs different arguments, especially if you want to convice the other party. Compared to now, it could be pretty decent for the average human. I think this needs to be admitted if one is to be honest.
Obviously, Libertarian transhumanism is strictly superior, because it has all the wonders, without the violence.
Some clarifications on the calculation argument:
Note that a AI would not need to calculate mathematically the perfect outcome to outperform humans. No “Supercomputers will run your life” advocate needs to enter the landmined territory of theoretical computability to prove his point. Remember that, maybe, singularity AIs can cheat by moving to another universe, then running ours from over there. However, that is not the point they need to make. Markets arent perfect (because markets are just humans cooperating) so with enough calculation power, one could outperform the markets.
Of course, its technically impossible to calculate with personal value scales, so without property rights, economic calculation is impossible by definition. But if you assume a benelovent and powerfull intelligence, it could just ask everybody and make reasonable judgements. Remember, its super-smart, so it could figure out reliable heuristics to find out how much more you really like apples over oranges.
If you cannot admit this, than you can simply not imagine a post-singularity AI, and the argument shifts to wether such an AI is possible or not - which is not an economic argument.
Of course, when you can outperform the market drastically- why not just join it and dominate? It should be easy to convince everyone to sign up for your plan (free cure for cancer and a flying Ferrari with every purchase!) so advocates of coercion just admit that their supersmart computer isn’t that great.
The example of the Luddite who wants to grow his own food is pretty good illustration - in our times, many people enjoy garden work for the sake of it. If your version of the future doesnt allow that, i dont want to live in it.
Its a waste of time to argue against the super AI - its better to show that its perfectly compatible with libertarianism. If you have something that bypasses the calculation argument, you no longer need coercion.
The problem, of course, is actually building that thing, without it just quoting back at us “we will recognize the rights of humans whenever they petition for them”.
On the topic of singularity:
I think some here underestimate the singularity - if it is possible, it could happen fast - 30 years from now is realistic. Once the basic groundwork, the “seed AI” is ready, it could happen in days or even minutes. I think there needs to be more effort to point out that austrian economics apply to super AIs as well, and that a transhumanist future is best when following libertarian principles. While the chances for both are small, i’d say that singularity in our lifetime is more likely then anarchy by education.
So the ubercomputer doesn’t “outperform the market”, it becomes integrated into the market, replacing CEOs and stuff… kind of the way any machinery makes certain human tasks obsolete.
Imo is a less confrontational way of framing a non confrontational argument.
Leaving aside the preposterousness of the “better than the market” calculation assertion, who/what would own/run/control this “post-singularity AI resource allocator”? If it’s owned/run/controlled “by itself” how do I ensure that its subjective valuations and motivations would align with mine before I “submit” myself to it?
Z.
Resource Based Economy
I suggest one read “The Sovereign Individual” by Helio Beltrao. I quote something he said that I thought was brilliant.
“Tyranny ends where we cease to support voluntarily our own serfdom”.
After reading Helio’s essay I suggest you go to TZM site and look up the following six short articles:
Sociology, Technology, Sustainability, Spirituality, Psychology, and Synopsis.
These articles, in my opinion, make for a very strong argument for a Resource Based Economy, and shed light on a viable solution for our economic, energy, and environmental problems. I don’t see more of the same as being viable.
Then if you have time watch both movies, you may just come away with a better solution on your own that you can share with us.
No it’s not. The underlying assumptions and goals are identical. It promises superabundance, ignores calculation/coordination, the role of the entrepreneur, incentives, the function of money, et al. It wishes to “abolish greed,” replace the market with “rational planning,” and eliminate innate and acquired individual differences. It is socialism through and through.
You already posted that exact same content. On this same page no less. If you have nothing new to add, there is no need to repeat yourself.
Running our universe from another wouldn’t work: As soon as it interacts with something, it interferes with the course it otherwise would have taken. Even running from another universe the best it can possibly do is “here’s what will happen if I don’t do something about it.”
Any competent entrepreneur can do the same kinds of “heuristics.” How do you think producers know whether they should grow more apples or oranges?
I think our argument here is the result of a miscommunication: Is your Transcendant providing for the economy in the role of an entrepreneur, or is it commanding it in the role of a socialist planner? If you’re arguing for it to fill the shoes of the entrepreneurs then we have no discussion; However a post-singularity AI cannot successfully fulfill the role of a central planner no matter how smart it gets. So long as sentient beings purposefully act, the calculation argument still applies.
I had a virtual “discussion” with one of The Zeitgeist Movement in which they asserted (paraphrase) that the world economy is capitalist and therefore the worst economic system possible as evidenced by the poverty level of the world listing some statistics on such. What a ridiculous line of thinking.
Some of the members in this “movement,” including those responding in this thread, assume a general disregard for logic and analysis that is almost unthinkable to a reasoning mind.
The following blog talk radio program by Zeitgeist founder Peter Joseph talks about a resource based economy. He has some good things to say about Von Mises but thinks economics is nothing more than a religion.
Peter Joseph the founder of TZM talks about a resource based system, has some kind words for Von Mises and claims Ecomomics is nothing more that Religion in the following:
Economics is a religion? Haha. That was a good one.
Pleas check out the following by Peter Joseph on a resource based system:
Please read this article which I just read:
TVP is like, caveman meets technology. Completely ignorant of how it came about, he now has the answer to shift from the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) to an environment of super abundance without changing his fallacious and instinctive economics.
I will listen to the blog and try to answer something of value to you.
Well its a pretty bad intro at the very least, I started transcribing for all to see (doubt many would listen through the whole thing) but I got to stop now, I’ll continue later
To say the least, the man knows nothing about austrian economics.
You know, if you go to the work of the high priests of modern market theory, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith; you find some wonderfully articulate and perfectly sound reasoning, you know, but that reasoning exists within, within, a close set of variables, and a series of presumptions are always evident, and again, those presumptions have nothing to do with anything that is provably tangible, no physical reference.
First of all, anyone that lumps Keynes together with those other names has no clue about economics. I would half expect him to include Karl Marx and Paul Krugman. Reasoning that exists within a presumption of logic? Yeah, that is a sticky presumption for this resource-based economy fad.