These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

So.....Fuel prices in the UK...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-03-06 15:53:49 UTC
Riedle wrote:
Quote:
First of all, I want to get rid of money because we quite clearly can create abundance with new technology. As such we can provide all the basics to all humans easily. Why does this suddenly imply a central government dictating stuff to everyone? No money and abundance will liberate humanity and make us truly free, not bind us down. This part will come sooner or later anyways though; it is only a question of time before 3D printers become advanced enough. I only want it to come sooner so that we can start working out the kinks in our society sooner, and make a better society for me, and for my family and friends. And with abundance, the ‘free exchange of goods and services’ will be a thing of the past, since we can get all we need anywhere for free. Is not that the point of technology after all, to free us from work? Once abundance is attained, we really should remove the government as it is now as well, no need for it in its current implementations.

Secondly, we are all grown up in this monetary system, and as such we are conditioned by it. Some more than others. We grow up with all kinds of ads, and all kinds of “values” that say how good it is to have these things or those things, or how having much money will make you happy. Those in control currently are as much conditioned as the average worker. Humans are greatly affected by the environment, and making assumptions about a core human nature form our current society gives a false indicator of what we really can be like. If anything human nature is adaptive, we got a remarkable ability to adapt to nearly anything. If we really want to change things in society, we can “cure” us by actually giving our kids a good education. Not just specialization and forced memorization as we do now, but a proper education. Then we need to have a long think about what is actually important in our lives, and combined with basic human needs derive a set of values to base our society on. These things will be a great start for a “cure”. And it is possible.


yikes...

Ok, not sure why you are so focused on ‘money’. Money is only what we all use to attribute value to something. Goods and services have different perceived values to all of us. Money allows us to show this differentiation quickly and easily. Money is the ‘loob’ that makes the economy work efficiently.
It is just a tool. People will always attribute varying levels of value to different things no matter if money is the tool that is used to do this or not.
Ie: The perceibed value of the hoover dam is much higher than that of a plate of chicken wings. ‘Getting rid of money’ will do nothing to change that other than make the valuation more arbitrary. So now the Hoover Dam is worth 12 billion plates of chicken wings. Well, how much is a plate of chicken wings worth? Oh yeah, a plate of chicken wings is worth two egg McMuffins…

Now do you see how ridiculous you wanting to get rid of money is? It will do nothing good and not change a damn thing about the perceived value of things except to make it more arbitrary and unfair.

And (lol) printers are already good enough to replace money (cash) we are all going cashless eventually anyways so counterfeiting will become less and less of a problem as time goes by. So am I to assume that by you wanting to get rid of ‘money’ you just mean physical cash? If so, that will only make matters worse.

Ok, this has got to be a troll. ‘The free exchange of goods and services’ does not mean free in the sense of it doesn’t cost you anything! Lol it means that it is relatively ‘free’ in the sense of being unencumbered or unnecessarily burdened by a third party to the transaction.. Nothing in life comes without cost.

Lol the rest of your post is is pure drivel. My values are fine thank you very much. I don’t need you or anyone else telling me that I need to change my values. How about you change yours if you like and leave me out of it?



3D printers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

3D printing has nothing to do with printing money... (What gave you that idea anyways?) But it has everything to do with cutting out the need for an economy altogether. You make what you need when you need it.

As for measuring value, in a scarcity based system, money is an effective tool, but in an abundant system, why do you need to ascribe a fixed value to hoover damn? Hoover damn provides energy, we need energy. Say we need X energy, so we make arrangements for X energy to be made. A plate of food lets you not go hungry that day. Simple. In such a society we need entirely different values then we got now.


Current value set of our society is driving us towards a cliff. Just look at the increase in jobless, homeless and poor in the western world. The increased damage to our environment from our industry. One would think new technology would make things better for more of us? I would prefer not to be dragged down with the rest of you, just because the majority of the human race refused to use the little gray matter they got and analyze our situation.

But I guess since you just say I spout "drivel" and say I am a troll, rather than ask some more serious questions, I guess it is a waste of time to try and get my points across to you. I will happily try and explain something better for you if you do not understand what points I am trying to make, but act a little bit more serious.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2012-03-06 16:57:56 UTC
Ahh, why didn’t you just say replicators lol because I see that is what you are assuming that they will behave like.
Hint: You will need to buy the inputs to these printers just like you need to buy the ink for our ‘2D’ printers today.

Lol

Nevermind, this is all a little too out there for me. Carry on good man.

PS: There are less poor and homless in the western world now than at anytime in history and there are less homeless and poor in the western world than any where else in the world... so there's that.


lol
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-03-06 17:33:32 UTC
Riedle wrote:
Ahh, why didn’t you just say replicators lol because I see that is what you are assuming that they will behave like.
Hint: You will need to buy the inputs to these printers just like you need to buy the ink for our ‘2D’ printers today.

Lol

Nevermind, this is all a little too out there for me. Carry on good man.

PS: There are less poor and homless in the western world now than at anytime in history and there are less homeless and poor in the western world than any where else in the world... so there's that.


lol



Yes, we do live overall better now then a few hundred years ago, not questioning that, just think we can do it a lot better ;)

As for ink, yes, that is true, but base materials is a lot easier to get then finished products (and when tech gets really advanced with nano tech, who knows how it will be). Just want to adapt to new tech, since tech is growing exponentially, and our society seems stagnant in comparison :)
Adunh Slavy
#44 - 2012-03-06 19:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Sidus Isaacs wrote:

First of all, I want to get rid of money because we quite clearly can create abundance with new technology. As such we can provide all the basics to all humans easily. Why does this suddenly imply a central government dictating stuff to everyone? No money and abundance will liberate humanity and make us truly free, not bind us down. This part will come sooner or later anyways though; it is only a question of time before 3D printers become advanced enough. I only want it to come sooner so that we can start working out the kinks in our society sooner, and make a better society for me, and for my family and friends. And with abundance, the ‘free exchange of goods and services’ will be a thing of the past, since we can get all we need anywhere for free. Is not that the point of technology after all, to free us from work? Once abundance is attained, we really should remove the government as it is now as well, no need for it in its current implementations.


Fact is, that we can feed, have clean water, house the world and give everyone medical care right now, this very day. We do not need to wait on some magical machines to accomplish this. The reason this TZM/VP/RBE clap trap about abundance is pushed is because that message has to accept, but do its best to ignore, one simple economic idea, Scarcity exists because wants are unlimited.

If wants were not unlimited, then all the governments could take whatever excess they wanted from the people and redistribute that to everyone that doesn't have those things and no one would mind. But this does not happen, there would be revolts and mass death as governments steal even more from the people.

Of course the people could do it them selves, but they do not. So along comes this idea of "abundance" to white wash the unlimited demand problem - once you comfortable fat asses in developed world have over abundance, you'll be more than happy to let the excesses go to those who don't have it. Well we can do it today! But we do not, most in the developed world already live in abundance.

Are you not sitting there at a $2000 computer, comfortable in your padded chair typing away, spending your excess time at some silly computer game? Why are you not out working, making money or goods that you your self can send to those that need it? All of your excess wealth, beyond your basic needs, you should be sending to those that need it. You are living in abundance right now, you selfish prick! ... Just kidding on that insult there, but I hope it illustrates the point.

In some ideal world where energy is unlimited, and no one has to work to produce everything we want, where we have unlimited amounts of raw materials for our robot slaves to utilize ... ok, then I'll listen.

If you want a better scociety, then stop waiting for some mythical machines and cuddling up to easy answers from a washed up old communist named Jaquces Fresco and do it your self, today. Go buy a blanket and a grocery bag full of food, find some homless guy, sit down and talk with him about whatever for a couple of hours and be his friend. Let me know when someone invents a machine that can do that for you.


Sidus Isaacs wrote:

Secondly, we are all grown up in this monetary system, and as such we are conditioned by it. Some more than others. We grow up with all kinds of ads, and all kinds of “values” that say how good it is to have these things or those things, or how having much money will make you happy. Those in control currently are as much conditioned as the average worker. Humans are greatly affected by the environment, and making assumptions about a core human nature form our current society gives a false indicator of what we really can be like. If anything human nature is adaptive, we got a remarkable ability to adapt to nearly anything. If we really want to change things in society, we can “cure” us by actually giving our kids a good education. Not just specialization and forced memorization as we do now, but a proper education. Then we need to have a long think about what is actually important in our lives, and combined with basic human needs derive a set of values to base our society on. These things will be a great start for a “cure”. And it is possible.



Who is going to give this grand education, this indoctrination full of thought stopping propoganda, like the ones you've expressed here? Now I suspect you say that "This is not propoganda!" Well so what? That's not for the speaker to determine, it is up to the listener. Those who are the speaker must all have the same message, can this central educational authority make everyone hear this wonderful message the same way? And let's not forget, a central authority must be there to get the message out in the first place, and then enforce it.

We have nearly 10,000 years of recorded history, almost every major religion of the world, in that time, has some form of the golden rule expressed as its central moral theme ... how's that going by the way?

So you'll get rid of money as a tool of control and instead use education and indoctrination. This is right out of the TZM and Venus Project play book. I can pretend I've not run across this idea before if it'll make it more fun for you, if you'd like. After all, I have an abundance of information on these topics, and it is my duty to share it with you. ;)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-03-07 00:45:05 UTC
(warning, might contain spelling issues due to error detection not working)

Adunh Slavy wrote:


Yes, we can have abundance today, as I already hinted at. But I do not see it happening with the current social and economic system. For the simple reason there is not profit in it. Thus, we get rid of that system and replace it with something more effective.

I live in arguably one of the best countries in the entire world, but I am still forced to go to work for money so I can buy the things I need, and so are all the people I know. But people in my town are still homeless. That is not abundance, only a great deal of unevenly distributed resources, and you need to commit to wage slavery to get access to it, singing away your finite time on this planet for working towards goals of corporations. You take a college "education" and specialize in one thing or another (preferably something you actually got at least some interest in), then you commit to life long servitude until you are old and useless. And there is no choice either.

Maybe my point did not come through earlier. Abundance as I see it will come sooner or later , due to advances in technology, but I would like to implemented a better system before that time. Afaik there is not an unlimited demand. There are about 7 billion of us, we all have certian basic needs. Meeting that is not unlimited. If you are refering to vainity items and other silly things, I do not count that as needs, only wants. Some wants are OK, but most of our wants for certian things are just conditioning by ads. We need to realize that. We could at least provide all the basics for everyone, and then use whatever resources is left for whatever other wants.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about my situation, though. Yes, I got it pretty good here, but how does me giving all that away help solve the root cause and work towards a better future? My computer is a tool I need, without it I lose a critical link to information. Other then that I actually live fairly simply if you must know, and a fair bit of my money have gone to help my family (without expecting it back). I have not gotten a car, and instead use public transportation.

I want a better society, but getting towards the one I want is not easy, it is in fact extremely hard. A whole lot harder then just ignoring what is going on around me and just conforming to the current system we live in. Sure, I could give a homeless guy a blanket, and some food. But what does that really solve? Nothing. That is my entire point. It is far better to adress the root cause. Why is he homeless in the first place? Why do he not have any money? How can we avoid this happening to him, and others like him? Giving him a blank does not sovle anything other then make one guy happy. If you really cared enough, you would try to find a way to solve homelessness for everyone.

Adunh Slavy wrote:



As for education, we all can take part in that. The real point of education is not to indoctrinate, but make everyone think for themselves. And teachers should be guides to help others along (eduation is not just for kids either, it is a life long process). I guess what you picture is some dystopian screen showing propagande, why is that? Do you really have such a bad perception on the word 'education'? As such I think the education given to kids today is terrible, it does nothing but force feed kids information. Proper education is not something you are spoon fed your entire life, proper education is something you take active part in, and the environment around you should enable that, and be able to guide you. Currently all of human knowlegde is available on the internet, that would be a decent start in education, showing where information is, and then act as a guide for that information. Of course, you will still need to teach kids language etc.

I am note sure what playbooks you are refering to. I am aware of Tzm and venus project, but so far all I have seen them do is present an idea for a better society, no propaganda to feed kids. So, if you have any relevant information, share it.

Call my ideas what you want, but from my perspective such a system would, while not perfect, be better then what we have currently. And for me that is good enough to work towards. If you got some better ideas, please feel free to share them. I have changed my opinion on many things throughout my life as it is, and I am sure I will change my opinion several more times in my life. Provided someone brings something better and more reasonable along that is.
Adunh Slavy
#46 - 2012-03-07 05:42:49 UTC
This will be a short response because we are meandering around; I'll try to address what I see as the central theme.

You ask, how can you doing what you can now, taking care of our fictional homeless dude, help move to this system you'd prefer. That's quite simple, what if everyone did that? Poof, all those homeless all over the place would be taken care of and we could all live happily ever after in an altruistic utopia. Each individual has to choose to make that happen. If you want it to happen, then do it. Don't wait on all this magical fluff about abundance and don't wait on everyone else.

You say, "If you really cared enough, you would try to find a way to solve homelessness for everyone." Let's suppose I know a way it can be done, and we can indeed define the barrier between wants and needs (good luck on that one btw) who am I to impose that solution on everyone else? Who am I, you, or the entire world, to define the difference between another individual's wants and their needs? No one has that right.

Only you have the right to give your property to someone else in exchange for no property in return. This can not be imposed by you on others and be moral, this can not be elected by you and others, and then be imposed upon others and be moral.

A truly altruistic world, where no force is required to make it work, is an impossibility. Each individual must choose it on their own. No amount of "education" is going to be able to undermine the elemental nature of freedom and liberty, they are a basic need, as much as food water and shelter. This ideal world has to evolve, it can not be imposed.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-03-07 08:38:59 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
This will be a short response because we are meandering around; I'll try to address what I see as the central theme.

You ask, how can you doing what you can now, taking care of our fictional homeless dude, help move to this system you'd prefer. That's quite simple, what if everyone did that? Poof, all those homeless all over the place would be taken care of and we could all live happily ever after in an altruistic utopia. Each individual has to choose to make that happen. If you want it to happen, then do it. Don't wait on all this magical fluff about abundance and don't wait on everyone else.

You say, "If you really cared enough, you would try to find a way to solve homelessness for everyone." Let's suppose I know a way it can be done, and we can indeed define the barrier between wants and needs (good luck on that one btw) who am I to impose that solution on everyone else? Who am I, you, or the entire world, to define the difference between another individual's wants and their needs? No one has that right.

Only you have the right to give your property to someone else in exchange for no property in return. This can not be imposed by you on others and be moral, this can not be elected by you and others, and then be imposed upon others and be moral.

You can use science to fairly well establish basic needs for a human being. And we have something called the human rights that you can expand upon. If we agree everyone has a right to this and that, then we can work towards those goals.

As for rights to do so, well, we are already imposed upon a great deal, are we not? Might as well get together and decide on a better way to do it then we currently is, is all.

I am not saying I, personally, intend to impose on everyone. ;)


Adunh Slavy wrote:
A truly altruistic world, where no force is required to make it work, is an impossibility. Each individual must choose it on their own. No amount of "education" is going to be able to undermine the elemental nature of freedom and liberty, they are a basic need, as much as food water and shelter. This ideal world has to evolve, it can not be imposed.


Impossible by today’s standards, yes. But impossible forever? I think not. Sure, many might chose to just do nothing in such a world, and is that really so bad? Is not that the ultimate freedom? To chose how you go about your day? I think I see your point however, and it does have some merit to it.

I agree it probable will evolve on its own some day, but we are now the masters of our own existence, why do we not push for that evolution now?

The way I see it, my personal existence is dependent on everything around me. So it only stands to reason that by improving everything around me, my own personal existence will be improved. With such an outlook, changing the world for the better comes only out of a desire to live better myself.

As for this discussion, it is quite interesting, because it lets me consolidate and refine my views more clearly, and it gives me new insights into how others think. I also realize that my values and outlook is quite different than most other I have met, and as such discussions can be even more interesting. But discussions on an internet forum is always tricky, because the text do not adequately convey all the information the way I might think it does.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#48 - 2012-03-07 12:39:20 UTC
Good news everyone!

Diesel is only £1.42 where I am. The garage sign was brokenBig smile
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-03-07 16:45:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Good news everyone!

Diesel is only £1.42 where I am. The garage sign was brokenBig smile


Unless you do mad mileage diseaseal barely saves any money now, I calculated that it would save me £200-400 over three years if I got the same model car with a diesel. Not worth it for me imo, performance wise the gap is nowhere as big as it used to be but its still there.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#50 - 2012-03-07 18:48:52 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Good news everyone!

Diesel is only £1.42 where I am. The garage sign was brokenBig smile


Unless you do mad mileage diseaseal barely saves any money now, I calculated that it would save me £200-400 over three years if I got the same model car with a diesel. Not worth it for me imo, performance wise the gap is nowhere as big as it used to be but its still there.


I only need to fill up once or twice a month and I drive everywhere. I can get 70-100 mpg in town depending how economical I drive and 120 on the motoway at 60mph. Diesel rocks.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-03-07 20:06:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Good news everyone!

Diesel is only £1.42 where I am. The garage sign was brokenBig smile


Unless you do mad mileage diseaseal barely saves any money now, I calculated that it would save me £200-400 over three years if I got the same model car with a diesel. Not worth it for me imo, performance wise the gap is nowhere as big as it used to be but its still there.


I only need to fill up once or twice a month and I drive everywhere. I can get 70-100 mpg in town depending how economical I drive and 120 on the motoway at 60mph. Diesel rocks.


Out of curiosity what are you driving?
Adunh Slavy
#52 - 2012-03-07 20:27:13 UTC
Sidus Isaacs wrote:

You can use science to fairly well establish basic needs for a human being. And we have something called the human rights that you can expand upon. If we agree everyone has a right to this and that, then we can work towards those goals.

As for rights to do so, well, we are already imposed upon a great deal, are we not? Might as well get together and decide on a better way to do it then we currently is, is all.

I am not saying I, personally, intend to impose on everyone. ;)


Good luck on getting everyone to agree on a scientific answer for "basic needs" and if you could even accomplish that, the 'noble goal' of making everyone equally poor will meet with some resistance.

Since our rights are already imposed upon, we should accept more imposition upon our liberties? And of course you are not going to personally impose upon anyone, but you'd elect officials with fine hats to do it for you?

Sidus Isaacs wrote:

Impossible by today’s standards, yes. But impossible forever? I think not. Sure, many might chose to just do nothing in such a world, and is that really so bad? Is not that the ultimate freedom? To chose how you go about your day? I think I see your point however, and it does have some merit to it.

I agree it probable will evolve on its own some day, but we are now the masters of our own existence, why do we not push for that evolution now?


Why push? Pull, encourage by example. If you agree that we can not force people to be charitable, which is essentially what taxation for social programs is, then who else is going to do it if not individuals?

And we are way off topic for this thread, sorry gas talkers.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-03-07 22:19:24 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Sidus Isaacs wrote:

You can use science to fairly well establish basic needs for a human being. And we have something called the human rights that you can expand upon. If we agree everyone has a right to this and that, then we can work towards those goals.

As for rights to do so, well, we are already imposed upon a great deal, are we not? Might as well get together and decide on a better way to do it then we currently is, is all.

I am not saying I, personally, intend to impose on everyone. ;)


Good luck on getting everyone to agree on a scientific answer for "basic needs" and if you could even accomplish that, the 'noble goal' of making everyone equally poor will meet with some resistance.

Since our rights are already imposed upon, we should accept more imposition upon our liberties? And of course you are not going to personally impose upon anyone, but you'd elect officials with fine hats to do it for you?

Sidus Isaacs wrote:

Impossible by today’s standards, yes. But impossible forever? I think not. Sure, many might chose to just do nothing in such a world, and is that really so bad? Is not that the ultimate freedom? To chose how you go about your day? I think I see your point however, and it does have some merit to it.

I agree it probable will evolve on its own some day, but we are now the masters of our own existence, why do we not push for that evolution now?


Why push? Pull, encourage by example. If you agree that we can not force people to be charitable, which is essentially what taxation for social programs is, then who else is going to do it if not individuals?

And we are way off topic for this thread, sorry gas talkers.


Yeah, we have gona bit off topic... but it was interesting.

Suffice it to say, I strive towards more freedom, and more abundance for all, not the opposite. And always relevant picture: http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq32nrvCq11qhmshyo1_500.jpg
Adunh Slavy
#54 - 2012-03-07 22:25:46 UTC
Sidus Isaacs wrote:

Suffice it to say, I strive towards more freedom, and more abundance for all, not the opposite.


Yep, If both can be done, great.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2012-03-08 05:19:38 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Good news everyone!

Diesel is only £1.42 where I am. The garage sign was brokenBig smile


Unless you do mad mileage diseaseal barely saves any money now, I calculated that it would save me £200-400 over three years if I got the same model car with a diesel. Not worth it for me imo, performance wise the gap is nowhere as big as it used to be but its still there.


I only need to fill up once or twice a month and I drive everywhere. I can get 70-100 mpg in town depending how economical I drive and 120 on the motoway at 60mph. Diesel rocks.


Out of curiosity what are you driving?


55 plate 1.4 turbo diesel C3.
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-03-08 08:02:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Good news everyone!

Diesel is only £1.42 where I am. The garage sign was brokenBig smile


Unless you do mad mileage diseaseal barely saves any money now, I calculated that it would save me £200-400 over three years if I got the same model car with a diesel. Not worth it for me imo, performance wise the gap is nowhere as big as it used to be but its still there.


I only need to fill up once or twice a month and I drive everywhere. I can get 70-100 mpg in town depending how economical I drive and 120 on the motoway at 60mph. Diesel rocks.


Out of curiosity what are you driving?


55 plate 1.4 turbo diesel C3.


That explains it, I thought you where exagerating the MPG figures.
Previous page123