Originally Posted by ertral
Nobody would be insentivised with the need to explore hoarding/greedy behavior for survival in a system that provides everything for you-including survival. Of coarse initially you can expect some of those values/behaviors to be carried in by some of us raised in this current system which requires we adopt values and behaviors like hoarding in order to attain survival-but after the first generation(s) completely born into a NLRBE, never having been exposed to a social organization that requires them to act selfishly in exchange for life, you'll practically never hear of that kinda behavior ever again. AND Yes! there will be infrequent exceptions that are attributable to some form of system flaw-caused mentality that we've yet to discover and address within the context of a sustainable social system. Only because we've nvr lived in a sustainable social system yet hence giving us the opportunity. Also a NLRBE btw wouldn't be a utopia which is a world that's achieved perfection and isn't evolving anymore. That's actually impossible. An actual working utopia by definition is impossible to achieve because you can't stop evolution, lol. Rather, a NLRBE would be emergent. This means whenever an improvement is made or discovered it will also be applied as soon as practically possible as to take advantage of it's value. So as we grow and further understand the causes of any infrequently exceptional, aberrant values or behaviors that are 'inefficient' or 'immoral', such as hoarding, than we'll weed them out as to preserve the integrity of our welfare. Besides, society will be so efficient it's not like an occasional hoarder here or there will rlly effect the rest of us. In fact, any person from the ole world will likely feel silly shortly after realizing that they aren't accomplishing anything by hoarding otherwise free resources that we'll all have 24/7 access to.
I can't imagine a set limit. It just seems irrelevant. -because a healthy society produces healthy minds and healthy minds will use resources as needed. I'm not sure any amount is too much in a society that produces in abundance cuz it would be a chore and a 1/2 to exhaust 'abundance'.
Last edited by AlbanyNY2015; 02-25-2015 at 12:43 PM.
Hello Stuart, I encourage you to shy away from any sensationalism commonly found within youtube's illuminati/NWO conspiracy culture. The entertainment industry has become increasingly comfortable with it. It's officially a market for pop culture demographs. Familiarize yourself with the fact that conspiracy does exist and let it inspire you to become a solution oriented thinker. Also keep in mind that it benefits the establishment for us to be desensitized to 'conspiracy' by constantly being exposed to it. Being overwhelmingly saturated by it can hinder our ability to efficiently differentiate fact from fiction. It's important to realize that it's easier for the powers that be if you're wholly distracted and or emotionally vulnerable. It's easier to hijack your attention when you're in an emotional state, such as fear, and steer it in a dangerous direction as to distract you. What I mean by this is if special interest are not alrdy sponsoring the dissemination of falsehoods mixed with truths by disinformation agents and agent provoceteurs then they certainly will eventually as more and more people begin to awake. Don't underestimate what they're willing to do to protect their interest. Don't let their efforts confuse you. Please exercise your best judgment and stay focused on the solution orientable information. Also - avoid an "us" vs. "them" narrative because at the end of the day we are all agents and victims of the sufferings inherent to this society of ours. For instance, if an ecological or economic collapse occurs, than we all suffer, together, as one. So let's embrace our brother-sister relations now before its too late and spread the necessary info from the bottom up in hopes of helping others recognize this reality as to help each other successfully thrive as one altruistic community.
Originally Posted by Stuart
I do not speak for the TZM.
Last edited by AlbanyNY2015; 02-25-2015 at 11:50 AM.
What are the greatest examples of the deliberate suppression of technological efficiency?
Are you familiar with biomimicry? If so, how do you see its roll in the design process at the Global Redesign Institute?
How do you see humanity's new capability and focus if the tenets of TZM were fully realized?
Originally Posted by MichaelH
In regards to Question#1, during the rolling 20's and the great depression of the 30's-some corporations, including gen. electric, colluded to standardize the light bulb's lifetime to 1000 hours-reduced from 2,500 hours. They're historically known as the 'phoebus cartel'. They monopolized the market with price control. This was the first mass use of 'planned obsolescence'. Also I think there was a historical figure that wrote and conceptualized planned obsolescence before it was actually used-much like Edward Bernays and 'propaganda'. But don't quote me on that one. If of interest, I'd consult your own research.
Last edited by AlbanyNY2015; 02-25-2015 at 03:24 PM.
Reason: tweakin typos
Anarchist economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Originally Posted by AlbanyNY2015
The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, "[collectivist anarchism] express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear.
Last edited by Lorant; 02-25-2015 at 02:06 PM.
Hello Peter Joseph. My question is concerned with the transitional period when we toss the current economic, political and social system of today for something efficient, fair and supporting the well being of every living creature on the planet. TZM doesn't seem to address the anticipated struggle, violence and difficult process involved having the current system and institutions surrender their power. Is there a plan for evolving to a better existence with the swiftest transition and least amount of suffering?
TVP/TZM advocates the complete disuse of both money and property. My question was more than less rhetorical to simply highlight that if a system utilizes money/property than TVP/TZM doesn't advocate it.
Originally Posted by Lorant
Last edited by AlbanyNY2015; 02-25-2015 at 03:32 PM.
Ideally everybody would want a clean transition but unfortunately, historically speaking, people/organisms evolve faster when confronted with catastrophe/ a life or death situation. In other words, we tend to adapt or change at the last moment when it's imperative to our survival. That's why the role of sustainability advocacy organizations are so important at this time-because if we can help enough people to realize that a transition is inevitable but not necessarily ugly than we can, with that awareness, have the opportunity to choose to cooperate in the coordination of a safe and efficient transition.
Originally Posted by cplusplusgoddes
Last edited by AlbanyNY2015; 02-25-2015 at 03:59 PM.
Some questions for the podcast: How might the US public education system change if this country adopted an NLRBE? Do you think online education would continue to be a growing sector in K-12 and higher education? How might the disciplinary landscape change -- especially in higher education, where research is a factor -- but perhaps also in K-12 education?
Last edited by Bibliophile; 03-10-2015 at 09:36 PM.
As I read through the thread I noticed there is a question concerning anarchism that might be similar enough (?) to one I would like to ask so if you already will have answered the following question, obviously just disregard this one. Also, if you read all the questions prior to recording the podcast maybe you can combine the aforementioned question about anarchism and mine? One more thing, this question is not really for my understanding but I thought it might be good for you to talk about this issue as I feel it arises quite often.
Question: How is NL/RBE different from Communism/Marxism/Socialism? or Why is NL/RBE not the same as Communism/Marxism/Socialism?
Last edited by NeoRBE; 03-11-2015 at 02:39 AM.
Tags for this Thread