Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 21 Questions

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 13, 2011, 3:11 a.m. EST by genanmer (822)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

21 questions

  1. How do we remove money from politics if government activities are not transparent?

  2. How do secret government activities (closed door meetings) become transparent if they are done in the name of national security?

  3. How do/ can we repay all the fraudulent debts accumulated by fractional reserve lending, derivatives, and usury?

  4. If government withdraws from international affairs and our nation's dollar loses it's spot as the world reserve currency, how will trade and international relations change?

  5. If money is just a tool and corporations are not people, why do people continue to defend the traditional unethical practices businesses use to accumulate wealth? (layoffs, outsourcing, cutting benefits, price gouging, artificially limiting the supply of a necessity)

  6. How many politicians possess technical training beyond influencing opinions and money?

  7. Would you trust a surgeon to operate on you without undergoing any technical training?

  8. Which countries without a U.S. military presence specifically Hate the U.S. and why?

  9. What information is excluded from the mainstream media and what sources are better/best to receive information?

  10. How dependent are you and your community on external trade for your source of food, water, energy and can you become more self sufficient?

  11. What beneficial community projects can Occupy groups perform?

  12. Who can you NOT blame for the mess we are currently in and what would it mean if everyone assumed responsibility?

  13. How close are we to reaching peak oil internationally and what clean alternative energies are you aware of?

  14. Can OWS effectively make use of a competing currency such as 'time dollars'?

  15. How far do freedoms extend beyond one's purchasing power in a free market?

  16. Do you believe yourself to be free?

  17. How many ecosystems are destroyed and polluted specifically to maintain profit gains?

  18. How are the lives of other cultures affected by Americans living the traditional American consumerist lifestyle?

  19. How many nuclear devices have been detonated since the creation of the nuclear bomb?

  20. Why are projects that support sustainability and can potentially create millions of jobs completely ignored?

  21. Are the owners of today's society incompetent, greedy, sociopaths, or some mix of all three?

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

This is true

Setting a standard is nice but what 'practices' do you believe help set a person's mind free?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

So learning not to cling to any ideas, beliefs, sensations, etc?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

It's interesting to note that the subconscious may pick up small nuances unconsciously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96z028M0g98&feature=related

Tapping into the subconscious however is another matter entirely. So I agree, some sort of feedback mechanism is needed.

The challenge then is in distinguishing between simply observing and actively controlling thoughts.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Actively controlling thoughts is essentially projecting preconceived ideas of what a thought means, what it should mean, how a person reacts to a thought whether physically or mentally, and if it is good or bad.

It is essentially forcing a label and expectations onto a thought in order to fit it into a worldview that was once held.

NLP or neurolinguistic programming specifically deals with this topic as different behaviors can be anchored into physical actions, everyday observations and that particular behavior can be triggered by a stimulus. Hypnotists utilize NLP in this way.

As many repress their own potential in order to fit into society. Poor beliefs for themselves whether internalized from the external environment or from personal punishment cause people to deny their own potential. Past experience is almost always influenced by belief and even scientific studies such as those conducted by Bruce Lipton prove that biology itself changes as a direct result of beliefs/perception. e.g. nocebo and placebo effects

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Good and bad behaviors are dualistic labels.

The problem with this tendency to label experiences, thoughts, beliefs, etc. as simply good or bad clumps experiences together. It is possible to experience multiple sensations, beliefs, and ideas at once. e.g. feeling pain and exhilaration in an athletic activity. Experiencing fear yet acting boldly in spite of it.

A dualistic perspective intentionally isolates experiences as it is an offshoot of Descarte's reductionism. Reductionism fails to account for synergistic and emergent properties. (the sum is greater than its parts)

This is important because it basically points out that the environment has a synergistic effect. The will of an individual adds to our co-created environment. The slave succumbs to it.

And so we return to the labels for good and bad. These are up to the individual to determine. It's their own mindful experiences that determine whether their suffering is beneficial (good) or detrimental (bad).

In the same way, society determines its own suffering and lays out laws accordingly. However, the suffering of today's society is grounded in the acquisition of money over the betterment of humanity and nature.

So we have humane individuals struggling against societies greed-based laws. We see many illegally imprisoned and berated for protesting greed, while those that inhumanely practice greed remain untouched.

Until society itself deeply reflects upon the notion of suffering and structures itself to alleviate it all notions of 'good' and 'bad' will mean very little..

[-] 1 points by XylitolEater (19) 10 years ago

Some very pertinent questions here. And some quite long ramblings follow as answers - I had to break it up to get it all onto the screen. :P Bear with me, if you can. As far as I can see, I am the first one to give an answer for all 21. I should get a job, I guess. Or combat my shyness and start a GA...

*1. How do we remove money from politics if government activities are not transparent? By raising the level of transparency. It will probably be an uneasy process, but it already began due to changes in technology and attitudes in the last twenty years. We need to continue with this process.

*2. How do secret government activities (closed door meetings) become transparent if they are done in the name of national security? Not everything should be transparent. Engagement plans for future conflicts, names and contact info of friendly informants, whereabouts of people holding key positions are perfectly reasonable to keep secret. I am sure CIA and assorted intelligence services keep exorbitant amounts of classified materials beyond this stuff, and it is for the national security indeed only in name. The nation will become much more secure (from inside enemies up there, anyway) ance these cease to be secrets.

* 3. How do/ can we repay all the fraudulent debts accumulated by fractional reserve lending, derivatives, and usury?

According to some, there are more debt in the world than there are assets. You can't pay that debt, period. We shouldn't attempt to pay it either, as this debt is created though fraudulent ways. Such a policy will bankrupt many big companies and some governments, thereby exacerbating global economic problems, but I think it is better than making societies (ie real people like you and me) starving for decades through austerities imposed my supranational financial agencies, like Greece today or Romania under Ceausescu. This is like a purifying fire - the corrupt big firms will crash and something purer grows out of the ruins.

*4. If government withdraws from international affairs and our nation's dollar loses it's spot as the world reserve currency, how will trade and international relations change?

I hope that America won't withdraw from international affairs even if Occupy happens to take over (I am not American). You have allies out there that trust you against much more ferocious enemies like North Korea and some potential threats like Russia, China, hell maybe even Iran. I don't think that the people of America are obliged to go to war if an ally of theirs is attacked, but I'd be glad if they do - strictly with volunteer armed forces, of course (and if, somehow or other, America gets attacked, I'd be glad if these allies, my home country included, help her repel the enemy). So what I would really like to see is a non-expansive, more defensive and sensible foreign policy that builds on mutual cooperation with allies, common economic interests with neutrals, ability to project huge defensive force if attacked or threatened, and strong diplomatic/intelligence capability to deter and undermine potential enemies. I think that such an approach defuses much tension in todays' conflict zones, encourage progressive development in zones outside the US influence, and, through reduction of the need for offensive weaponry, frees huge capital for technological and cultural advancements.

As for international trade: Every good working currency is and will be reserve currency to some extent: CHF is, AUD is, GBP is, even the crappy Euro is still operates as such. USD may certainly retain some of its role as such, for it is a country of huge economic potential. There was international trade before the emergence of one world currencies anyway.

Besides this, international trade as of today is overgrown. The only area where moving millions of tons of cargo over thousands of kilometres can be justified is raw resources trade. You may not have enough food in your country. Or you may like banana and chocolate. God forgot to plant metals in the soil of your country when it got created etc. It is perfectly reasonable to trade to get what you need. But to import goods that you could prepare for yourself, it only makes your people unemployed, other peoples exploited, and environment poisoned by exhaust gases. When USA sends cars into Germany and in the same time imports cars from there, this is only a waste of energy. I think the world needs a transition towards more localized economies instead of economic globalization.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

*1 agreed

*2 This goes into much more grey areas as this is where conspiracy meets reality. There's no doubt that secret intelligence agencies exist but what kind of regulations and monitoring can 'ever' be done to ensure they are working in the best interest of the people and not some corporation, small elite group, or foreign interest? I agree, we should not risk the safety of current informants, and agents installed in foreign areas by outright declassifying everything but we should make efforts to make the necessity for secrecy obsolete as much as possible.

The people can not make informed decisions without the freedom of information. Money in politics is dangerous because it concentrates power. The same can be said of information..

*3 I agree allowing big corporations that rely on fraudulent practices to finally fail will reset the playing field. However, I don't believe the corruption was a fluke or the product of a few bad apples. I think it is a fundamental part of a competitive monetary-market system. If we truly wish to prevent future financial disaster scenarios from repeating a complete rehaul of 'normal' business, political, and media-related proceedings are necessary. Ethics must be incorporated into the very monetary, market, and political systems themselves.

*4 I believe America has purposely made or maintained foreign nations dependency on itself in order to justify certain profitable trade agreements. I however agree that offensive tools must be decommissioned in favor of non-lethal defensive ones.

I also agree with the greater emphasis on localized community economies for non-essential trade functions.

[-] 1 points by OLLAG (84) 10 years ago

one and two contradict bribery happens in those meetings.

[-] 1 points by XylitolEater (19) 10 years ago

I'm continuing...

*5. If money is just a tool and corporations are not people, why do people continue to defend the traditional unethical practices businesses use to accumulate wealth? (layoffs, outsourcing, cutting benefits, price gouging, artificially limiting the supply of a necessity) Those who defend them are either beneficiaries of said methods or are blinded by the propaganda of those who are.

*6. How many politicians possess technical training beyond influencing opinions and money? Depends what qualifies as "technical training". Many of them were trained as lawyers, which is a necessary trade - without it, societies wouldn't work. There are politicians who were soldiers before - that's techincal training fo sure. There are a few that were doctors, scientists, teachers, artists. I think most of those who qualifies as a politician has some non-business and non-media education, although many didn't ever worked in that job they were trained to do.

*7. Would you trust a surgeon to operate on you without undergoing any technical training?

Depends on the circumstances. There are exceptional cases. If all the surgeons around me happen to be drugged, paralyzed by sicknesses, belong to Scientology, or have a high number deadly faults during operations, I might look for a daring non-surgeon or operate on myself instead.

*8. Which countries without a U.S. military presence specifically Hate the U.S. and why?

I don't think a country can hate. For countries whose population tends to have greater than average hate for the US, let's pull a list out of my arse:

  • North Korea: long and unclosed war that successfully prevented them from engulfing the South; continuous anti-American propaganda from the regime as an ideological justification of their very existence.
  • Vietnam: merciless warfare for a very long time, sometimes augmented with chemical weapons.
  • Russia: remaining effects of Soviet-time propaganda.
  • China: long-term regime propaganda; perceived rivalry for world hegemony; support for Taiwan and Japan.
  • Iran: Propping up Israel on Islamic-inhabited land; messing up their democracy in '53 coup d'état; supporting the oppressive regime of the Shah Reza Pahlavi; supporting Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war with conventional weaponry and precursors for chemicals; aggressive posturing about nuke rights and economic sanctions; encircling via Iraq, Afghanistan and Tajikistan bases. (So they have some actual reasons.)
  • Serbia: for the "Kosovo war".
  • Latin-American countries including Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Ecuador, Chile, and probably Brazil and Peru: for fomenting civil wars, some of which lasted for decades; supporting oppressive dictators for economic interests, from the 1890s onwards; for ruthless economic exploitation. I think there are some more contenders, but most of them do have US military present within their borders (Cuba got Gitmo, then there is Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, maybe Japan).
[-] 1 points by XylitolEater (19) 10 years ago

*9. What information is excluded from the mainstream media and what sources are better/best to receive information?

MSM discourages critical thinking and conditions consumers to think in a shallow, superfluous way through abundance of celebrity news and other entertainment, and by lack of in-depth discussion of real (political-economic-scientific) news; it incites a permanent feeling of insecurity, mistrust and incapability through stress and arousal, and destroys values by reinforcing negative behavioral patterns through its programming. As for content filtering, it seems to try to prevent diffusion of facts and ideas that endanger the image of the socio-economical elite as benevolent and capable leaders of the people, along with any alternatives to present system. There is no "pure", objective media... but interest groups always try to find weak points in each other - if such are found, they are trumpeted around for propaganda value. If you want to know how US police treats Occupiers, look at Russia Today or Al Jazeera. If you want to know how Russian authorities deal with their opposition, watch CNN.

*10. How dependent are you and your community on external trade for your source of food, water, energy and can you become more self sufficient?

I live in a country that is self-sufficient for food and water. Most of our energy comes from Russia though, as a remainder of the economic structure developed under Soviet occupation. It is being partially subsidized by the govt so as to avoid social unrest, preventing development of more sustainable energy sources. We got to develop our mass transit to cut back on car fuel consumption. We got good potential for geothermal and hydroelectric, although the latter would require big dams and the environmentalists are against that. (I think it is easier to develop a lake environment than replant a forest after acid rain from burning coal killed it all.) We go a nuke plant that runs on Russian uranium. We have own uranium, but it is now too expensive to mine. I am okay with nuclear energy. It can be done in such a way that very few waste forms by it, although ours requires development to get there.

*11. What beneficial community projects can Occupy groups perform?

Besides creating a new and more just form of society, what I think their most important function (I find myself uncharacteristically optimistic :) ) - almost anything they find some know-how and some courage to do. Teaching about politics, teaching about health (nutrition, exercise, stress reduction methods, safe sex...), economics (macro and micro, credits, debit cards, fair trade, responsible trading practices, producer-to consumer direct food trade, finding job opportunities for those in need), environmental issues (current dangerous investments, better practices, energy conservation, carbon reduction, vegetarianism etc), teaching about your rights (and later on, maybe your duties... :) ), exchange of skills. Encouraging arts and sports. Forming communities. If they flesh out enough, maybe they will be able to cut back / prevent crime. Just some ideas.

*12. Who can you NOT blame for the mess we are currently in and what would it mean if everyone assumed responsibility?

Animals, youngsters and those who did assume the responsibility are, according to me, above blame. The average (wo)man who grew into the system and trained into complacency is, although not blameless, but they have their excuses: they are conditioned to behave as they behave. After being ground through the comformity enforcing systems ("=education") of society, they brainwashed into keeping up with the Joneses, and they have believed that they are powerless. (And in a sense, they are. If the powers that be decided to pull a Tienanmen on Occupy before it becomes too strong, nothing on Earth could prevent them from ensuring their own hegemony for another some decades. They are afraid through that it would shock their own troops, who are the same way comformized as the average people, out of complacency, and they'd behave unpredictably.)

*13. How close are we to reaching peak oil internationally and what clean alternative energies are you aware of?

I think that we already reached it. Hydrocarbons won't completely run out, but we won't be able to elevate mining production levels anymore. Our best alternative is cutting our needs for transport, by localizing production (see question #4) and switch to mass transit, bike and walk based urban planning methods (that is, adieu, suburbs!). Mass transit can be run on renewable electric energy. Of course, we will still need the hydrocarbons, both as raw materials (although plastics too need a major cutback in favor of glass and plant-based cellulose) and as energy source. The common cow is a good methane source, and methane is just the same as natural gas - burns well and we can catalyze it into a host of precursor materials. Better yet, we can find and breed bacteria and fungi that can metabolize sugars and even cellulose into methane very efficiently. And bio-reactors with algae could provide much of the needed sugars with very little need for territory - especially on the tropics, where sunlight is abundant. Such reactors culd be even installed as brownfield investments.

[-] 1 points by XylitolEater (19) 10 years ago

*14. Can OWS effectively make use of a competing currency such as 'time dollars'?

Not yet - it is yet too marginal to effectively "field" a new currency, time-based or otherwise. After some growth, and especially if the skill distribution gets even enough, it can be a profitable or even necessary development. Not necessarily Time dollar - it may also be backed by the then owned belongings of the participants, which makes it easier to form financial links with other, non-time-based economies.

*15. How far do freedoms extend beyond one's purchasing power in a free market?

Your freedom is as much as you get from others or take for yourself. If other powers (the state, the rich, your neighbors) do not want to limit you, then you are basically free; if they want to, then you are free to the extent you can defend your freedoms. I hear that out there in America, people can tell their neighbors what kind of plants they should grow in their gardens - if they successfully argue on court that your plants are uglier than their orderly cut and manured golf grass, then you lessened their house prices, and you are make pay for it - then you just lost your freedom to decide what to grow in your garden. But you can move, you can convince your neighbors, and you can also convince the court, and by these three choices, you just defended your freedom intact. In the Enlightenment, Western states decided they won't mess with your worldview, religious or otherwise. they gave you freedom in that respect, unprecedented in previous centuries, and this is a freedom that doesn't depend on your purchasing power (except if you need to bribe your priests or purchase your idols). But if you are courageous and clever enough to hide it well, then you can practice a forbidden religion while mimicking being in the mainstream. That is freedom by your own effort. Or you can be caught, given the chance to repent, and you may decide to be martyred for your faith. That is also a free decision on your part, although one that limits all the other freedoms in deciding on affairs in your present life... In a completely free market, only your internal freedoms to make such decisions are independent of your purchasing power, but they remain so. In a market regulated like today's America, your external freedoms will be actually lesser than your purchasing power, because the system gives more leverage to the poor.

*16. Do you believe yourself to be free?

More or less, as of yet. The most serious limitation of my freedom is my own personality. :/ Too shy, too introverted. Total freedom is, of course, impossible in this world. If the government (that of my country, or that of America, for that matter) f#cks up something, then I will be f#cked as well. And when I will make a family, I will in a certain sense less free. Or a conversion of one sort of freedom into a different one. It is not a bad thing at all, after all, freedom is just a tool.

*17. How many ecosystems are destroyed and polluted specifically to maintain profit gains?

Few ecosystems are destroyed for reasons other than to maintain/extend profit gains. There is always someone who gains profit or reduces costs. While the effective reason for environmental destruction is economical (if it wouldn't be profitable, no one would do it), the ultimate reason is not necessarily so. The desire to drive a SUV is not an economical thing; it is a cultural feature. The production and fueling of SUVs, and the building of motorways is then the destructive force. Or eating much meat. Before the twentieth century, meat was consumed once per week, except for the upper class, very rich people, and the animals were raised on areas unsuitable for growing human food. As the economy had grown, people wanted upper class lifestyle - and with that, meat. That desire for meat couldn't be satisfied by the traditional methods; now we are feeding 10 tons of grains to cattle to produce a ton of meat, a food we can easily live without - we uprooted the grass and the forest by doing so, and poisoned the soil with the medicines we fed to the animals and the manure they produce. The actual environmental damage is done for economical reason - few people would engage in large-scale meat production to produce meat for themselves in the usual quantities -, but the underlying cause was indeed a non.-economic cultural trait.

*18. How are the lives of other cultures affected by Americans living the traditional American consumerist lifestyle?

In the very best cases, they became like "imperfect" Americans. It was a transition that didn't do well for the average well-to-do American either. In the case of these "other" cultures, they embraced the "traditional" consumerist values, ideals and aspirations, which are destructive enough by themselves - accompanied by the frustration of not having the means to satisfy these desires and live by these ideals. You can't have freedom of press, assembly, worldview and opinion if you happen to live in an oppressive dictatorship, and you can't have a cozy big house, two cars, a big TV and good food if you live by less than two dollars a day. The first generation refused the values of their parents for these values and aspirations, creating a generational schism; the second generation then refused the consumeristic lifestyle - and along with it the freedom, democracy, human rights etc.- and took refuge in aggressive and past-oriented nationalism. In the very worst case, they died in a resource war waged for oil or bananas, or became indentured servants in a debt trap on a plantation that produces for the American market.

[-] 1 points by XylitolEater (19) 10 years ago

*19. How many nuclear devices have been detonated since the creation of the nuclear bomb?

If I remember correctly, 2047 pieces - that is, just enough for a middle-sized nuclear world war. Except for the second and third, all were in experiments. Most of them by Russians, then USA, Britain, France, China, India (7), Pakistan (2), North Korea (2) and a shared South African/Israeli (1) one.

*20. Why are projects that support sustainability and can potentially create millions of jobs completely ignored?

Transition to renewable energy - setting up infrastructure, and then maintenance. Transition to labor-intensive organic food production. Raising the quality of systems like education and, to a lesser extent, healthcare and social security. Encouragement of services consumption instead of objects and materials consumption. If people would went to entertaining events, to art performances, to sing, to do sports, to play games, and to learn languages, skills and professions - and even to travel more, that would generate demand for facilitators for all these activities (=service jobs), and of course the associated paraphernalia and infrastructure (=production jobs). Instead of eating four times the calories we need and then buying all the medicines and treatments to try to keep ourselves reasonably healthy after that, following fashion in clothing (and throwing away perfectly good clothes because they aren't fasionable anymore), buying two cars per family, buying a computer and a tv set per person, and all the assorted consumer electronics that are replaced every year. Then we wouldn't have to work that much, and we actually had the time and energy to do all the above, instead of just crashing before the telly. Of course, we'd need a culture and education facilitating that, planning and spreading of which is in itself another huge job opportunity for tens of thousands of presently un(der)employed professionals.

*21. Are the owners of today's society incompetent, greedy, sociopaths, or some mix of all three?

Owners, LOL! We are somewhat more free than that. ;) I think being a greedy sociopath qualifies for being incompetent as well. And if not a greedy sociopath, why would someone want to own society?

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Thank you for answering all the questions in a well thought out manner. I agree with many of the points you made.

The owners question was in reference to a George Carlin bit ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0OJEFlq7A

I have additional questions to help clarify many of these responses which I'll post up later.

[-] 1 points by milesvideo (1) 10 years ago

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 10 years ago

That's a long list of questions. I'll start with #13. I think we have already begun to feel the effects of peak oil, in terms of the increasing cost of extraction.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago
  1. Support and vote for candidates that support your position.

  2. The renminbi will maybe become the world reserve currency. China takes on the traditional US role in the world.

  3. Very few. But it isn't a hard job: take the money and vote the way they tell you to.

  4. No. By the way, did you ever notice then when a politician dies in office, his/her spouse generally feels capable of taking over the job? Imagine if your surgeon's wife showed up to do your operation.

  5. North Korea.

  6. Every country desires US pop culture. It is pretty funny that the guy who killed Gadhafi was wearing a NY Yankees cap.

  7. A little over 2000.

  8. "Lord, what fools these mortals be."

Edit - for some reason the website changed the numbers in the list (I didn't address all the questions) - you will have to figure out which answer goes with which question.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

thanks, I think I was able to pin your answers to the questions.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 10 years ago
  1. Often because they are impractical to implement.
[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

I'm guessing this is in response to

"Why are projects that support sustainability and can potentially create millions of jobs completely ignored?"

isn't it impractical not to? Sustainability = long term investment.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 10 years ago

Well Communism is a great ideal and idea in theory, but that's the thing about many projects of this sort, they are great in theory, but are often impractical to implement and are often too idealistic. What are your views on this?

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago

"Well Communism is a great ideal and idea in theory..."

Flapping my arms and flying to work is a great idea in theory, but it doesn't take into account various principles of physics. Communism doesn't take into account various aspects of human nature. I think Freud put it best (in "Civilization and It's Discontents"): "I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system are based are an untenable illusion."

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 10 years ago

Thanks for restating my argument.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Communism will not function unless an abundance of necessary goods are available AND everyone willing collaborates to make the system work.

Actually, the later requirement of communism applies to all systems. Capitalism is able to limit the negative effects of greed somewhat, however collaboration is inevitable. And corporate interests in general seek a way of getting ahead even if it means breaking the rules or manipulating the rules to be unethical in order to do so. The corporations that fail to 'take advantage' of unethical opportunities will fall behind financially in most cases.

However, I think we currently rely on money too much to simply let it go. Rather, we need reforms within the current system to make the system much more ethical. From there we can allow money itself to go obsolete 'if' it is recognized as a hindrance to providing abundance.

Money promotes greed and hoarding for personal gain, often at the expense of the community. It is an incentive for inhumane behavior and acts as a rationalization when it is regarded as sacred. What's important is improving the quality of life for oneself and everyone else as best as possible. And investing in projects, such as those that advocate sustainability, is one way of accomplishing this.

So I believe a shift towards ethical management and coexisting economic systems is necessary. But I wouldn't promote communism unless abundance is already provided openly. Advances in tech such as automation and cybernation is making that a possibility.

Resource Based Economic test cities are necessary to prove the feasibility of any system outside capitalism.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 10 years ago

That's reasonable. Could you clarify how you believe money would go obsolete? Because, as Mr. Adam Smith states, money is only a rationing device and in the absence of money another rationing device would spring up in it's place.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Exactly, money is a rationing device necessary when there is a scarcity.

If energy can be generated in such abundance that people can access it as readily as tap water or air no one would be willing to pay for it.

The same applies to many goods, and services. However, automation is necessary to ensure people aren't forced to perform menial tasks people would normally dislike. When enough automation and abundance is provided labor for income is no longer a necessity but can remain for unnecessary goods/ services that remain scarce (if people so desire)

The point is, the pursuit of a post-scarcity society should be our goal as a community to raise the standard of living for everyone.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 10 years ago
  1. We are nowhere near peak oil. That whole thing is a myth.
[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Source?

How many new easily accessible sources or new technologies to synthetically produce oil have been discovered?

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 10 years ago

Gulf of Mexico. Canada. Off the shore of Brazil. The god of OWS, Obama, gave brazil billions to develope their oil fields.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Some more questions

Do you believe in global warming?

Was the offshore oil spill in the Gulf Coast a fluke?

What is the ecological impact of drilling these new sites?

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 10 years ago

The global warming we are experiencing is a natural cycle. No, the spill was a fuck up. Considering how rarely it happens is amazing. Considering the amount of regulations on drilling probably not much. Though in a Third World shithole like Brazil who knows.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

hmm... :/

Wouldn't we be better off investing in clean alternative energy sources or restructuring our infrastructure so we are much less dependent on foreign oil? e.g. light rail, maglevs, mass transportation

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 10 years ago

Mass transportation is a non starter in a country this large. While we should develop alternative energy it will only be viable in small areas. Oil will not be replaced for literally centuries.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Mass transportation is more of problem of population density. For high density areas it is possible. However, promoting people to move into high density areas is often difficult as affordable housing is very scarce or in high crime neighborhoods.

As for energy, obtaining it isn't all that difficult with recent technologies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxXLW69rFgc

It's the infrastructure shift that is difficult, especially when the market does not wish to support financially unsustainable but ecologically sustainable alternative energies.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 10 years ago

Don't forget about ANWR and mega shale deposits east of the Rockies.