Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is The Free World Charter?

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Computers are programmed by humans. Increased processing power doesn't equal computers being more intelligent than humans.

    I know that.
    I'm talking about artificial intelligence different to processing power.


  • Options
    #93
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    AI is programmed by humans.


  • Options
    #94
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    AI is programmed by humans.

    I know that too.
    The process is trying to simulate how humans think. It is not beyond the realms of imagination to believe that it is possible. In such a case then how about a machine a billion times smarter than a human? If you believe that is possible then the question is what would such a machine be used for. It could find cures for diseases, nano technology that could clean up the oceans, new ways of doing things that we can't even imagine now.


  • Options
    #95
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    Thank you southsiderosie for your impressive and exhaustive response. I do truly appreciate it.
    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Please provide one example where man's desire to blow up the current socioeconomic system to impose something new and exciting (rather than make a gradual shift to something that is actually rooted in a society's norms and culture) ...
    Well, any revolution you care to mention for a start. Ask the people of Libya or Egypt if they think their revolution is new and exciting. American Declaration of Independence, Ireland 1916 Uprising, Russian, French and Chinese Revolutions (I'm sure your knowledge of history is far superior to mine). Massive seismic change does happen in societies all the time. Try the Industrial Revolution? That's probably the closest to my suggestion.

    southsiderosie wrote: »
    As Amaryta Sen noted, famines generally do not occur in democracies.
    You seem to confuse democracy with good organisation and technology. Good organisation encourages people to work together and solve problems; technology enables us to bring about those solutions. That is why there are little or no famines in developed countries. (Watch this space though, democratic life as we know it is crashing all around us. It is only a matter of time before huge nations flounder in default. Once the petro-dollar goes..)
    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Education is a big part of it, but education has to overcome culture. When you have the president of a country with one of the highest HIV rates in the world saying he "took a shower" after having unprotected sex to protect himself from AIDS, do you really think that is a country that is going to lower its HIV rates anytime soon? There is huge variance in HIV/AIDS rates, and a lot of this comes down to education - again a political rather than an economic phenomenon. This is particularly true in the case of HIV/AIDS because there is so much money available to address this disease - far more so than chronic illnesses that affect a much larger population, such as diabetes.
    Current Politics and Economics are essentially one and the same. For example, do you think Labour and FG are going to do amazing things with the country now they are in power? Why not? Because Politics/Banks/Economy/Business are all one fuzzy entity, whose first priority MUST be to perpetuate its own economic survival.
    southsiderosie wrote: »
    The drugs are another issue. I admire those countries, most notably Brazil and India, that stood up the the pharmaceutical companies and really pushed for cheap, easily deliverable drugs. But, again, this is a political question, not an economic one.
    No point in getting stuck in to the pharmaceuticals really is there?

    southsiderosie wrote: »
    And this is where regulation comes in. Forty years ago nobody would have touched the water in Boston's Charles River, and today there are open river swimming competitions there. I'd also add that some of the worse cases of environmental poisoning happen in places that are not capitalist and not democratic (Soviet Russia, for example).
    Regulation is not enough to stop unscrupulous individuals from doing bad things. The ONLY way is to educate people from a young age, and by giving them a credible, logical reason why it's bad to do certain things. Regulation is the 'finger-in-the-dam' solution to problems.
    southsiderosie wrote: »
    "Tiny ruling elites" don't put guns to people's heads and make them take out huge mortgages.
    So you saved up and bought your own house/car etc. (I know you don't really believe this, so I'll leave you alone..)

    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Fine, have some data: The Brookings Institute notes significant differences in national outcomes for social mobility. Yet all the countries includes are market economies. Notably, countries that are liberal market economies do worse in regards to social mobility than those that are coordinated market economies (the Nordic countries, Germany). Not all forms of capitalism are the same.
    Er, I've no idea what you're on about here, sorry..


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Yes, we know. But what you are proposing still doesn't make any sense, not only because you are conflating the effects of economic versus political systems, but because you have yet to address questions of historically consistent human behavior (greed, lust for power, etc) and social context.
    I think I covered this above..
    southsiderosie wrote: »
    It's funny that these are the users that you lump together as stalwart defenders of capitalism. Some are, some aren't. The only unifying thread between us is that we seem to think the ideas you propose are ridiculous for a variety of reasons, most of which you have refused to engage directly. So instead of pushing everyone else to defend their positions on a threat that YOU started, how about you either 1) present your ideas clearly without sending everyone back to slog through twenty pages of text on some random websites, 2) take peoples' opinions at face value and engage with them, and/or 3) acknowledge that people fundamentally disagree with you and let it go?
    1) There is a lot to take on-board with this initiative. It's not perfect, but in theory, it's better. I say in theory, because it can't be proved until implemented. However, I've yet to hear any credible disproof too. Remember, you must compare the theory with the current regime and all its failings. If TVP / Free World Charter are only (say) 80% good, then that's probably still miles better than the alternative.

    2) I am engaging, aren't I?

    3) Not without a fight though.


  • Options
    #96
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    silkfield wrote: »
    1) There is a lot to take on-board with this initiative. It's not perfect, but in theory, it's better. I say in theory, because it can't be proved until implemented. However, I've yet to hear any credible disproof too. Remember, you must compare the theory with the current regime and all its failings. If TVP / Free World Charter are only (say) 80% good, then that's probably still miles better than the alternative.

    2) I am engaging, aren't I?

    3) Not without a fight though.

    Actually I don't think you are engaging. You have not addressed the issue of human nature (which has been raised several times) or differences in outcomes across similarly capitalist countries. When directly challenged, you have slightly changed the subject in your reply (greed and competition are not the same; you replied to Sen's point with a comment about organization rather than addressing the empirically tested assertion about democracies, which can existi in both developed and underdeveloped countries...again, this is a distinction between a political system and an economic system, a concept which you seem to be having some trouble with).

    If you want to refute what people have said, then do so with clear historical and/or empirical evidence. If you responses are just "but we have to try something new" or to skirt the issues raised, why would anyone keep engaging with you? Frankly there are far more interesting threads in this regard.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    silkfield wrote: »
    Human instinct is to survive and procreate. Today, we confuse survival with earning money and competing against each other. Humans are a social species by nature, that's why most people live in cities. The fact that we are competing against each other is in fact AGAINST our nature.

    Anyway, don't rule it out. If this initiative was adopted, everyone would gain. It's difficult to see this in the current world, I admit.
    :D


  • Options
    #98
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    1) There is a lot to take on-board with this initiative. It's not perfect, but in theory, it's better. I say in theory, because it can't be proved until implemented. However, I've yet to hear any credible disproof too. Remember, you must compare the theory with the current regime and all its failings. If TVP / Free World Charter are only (say) 80% good, then that's probably still miles better than the alternative.

    Not only in theory can a centrally planned moneyless society not work. Its not worked in practice. See USSR and China. Mass starvation followed. I've linked you to a video that explains why this happened. They failed not because of human nature but because it was impossible.


  • Options
    #99
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Not only in theory can a centrally planned moneyless society not work. Its not worked in practice. See USSR and China. Mass starvation followed. I've linked you to a video that explains why this happened. They failed not because of human nature but because it was impossible.

    Communism is still a monetary and elitist system..? :confused::confused:


  • Options
    #100
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    SupaNova wrote: »
    The Zeitgeist Movement is a twist on Socialism with a focus on the environment, technology(machines doing everything) and sustainability. They talk very little on how to get to this utopia. Maybe because it would actually take huge loss of life and human sacrifice to get there. And all on the premise that a computer(programmed by a human) can solve the problem of efficient resource allocation in a society without money. History shows that Socialism lead to mass starvation.

    whoah there. the zeitgeist movement have nothing to do with socialism and more to do with start trek. Socialism leads to mass starvation? please


  • Options
    #101
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Communism is still a monetary system..? confused.gifconfused.gif

    No its not.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

    This Zeitgeist Movement is a cult, a religion. Peter Joseph is the cult leader, believe what he tells you, because everyone else just cannot see what is going on in the world. Do not bother to do any research, all other sources bar Fresco only contain thought stuck within their own boxes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Socialism leads to mass starvation? please

    Replace Socialism with Marxism if you like.

    A moneyless centrally planned economy will lead to mass starvation.


  • Options
    #103
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    SupaNova wrote: »
    No its not.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

    This Zeitgeist Movement is a cult, a religion. Peter Joseph is the cult leader, believe what he tells you, because everyone else just cannot see what is going on in the world. Do not bother to do any research, all other sources bar Fresco only contain thought stuck within their own boxes.

    The monetary system is a cult, a religion. The bank is the cult leader, believe what he tells you, because everyone else just cannot see what is going on in the world. Do not bother to do any research, all other sources bar Fresco only contain thought stuck within their own boxes.


  • Options
    #104
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Does anyone else smell a mass suicide in the offing?


  • Options
    #105
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    I don't much care for Mr. Joseph; and 'Zeitgeist, The Movie' has done a lot of irreparable damage to the good work of Jacque Fresco.

    Part of the reason I have started The Free World Charter is because I disagree with PJ's 'conspiratorial' approach. The other part of the reason is that I think The Venus Project is over complex and looks too much like a cheesy Star Trek set. (As many of you have been keen to mention!) It is just too in-credible for most people.

    Both approaches have serious drawbacks in my opinion. That is why I am distancing myself from them. You will notice my website is clean, neutral and simple. This, I hope, is the approach that will win out if this initiative is ever to get off the ground.


  • Options
    #106
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    The monetary system is a cult

    Whats a monetary system?


  • Options
    #107
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Whats a monetary system?

    A system of trade using money. Every socio-economic in the World today uses money, capitalist, communist, socialist, whatever.

    Nowadays, money IS debt. Google 'Money As Debt' and you'll soon discover why the system is so dysfunctional. There is more debt in the world than there is money. If you tried to pay back every loan in the world with all the money in the world, there isn't nearly enough. And interest just keeps growing and growing.

    At the very least (notwithstanding my proposal), our world economy is heading for one drastic 'reset' that's going to cause economic mayhem.

    People talk of Ireland defaulting. We're not the only ones. Once one country goes, they will fall like dominoes. The American Dollar is on the brink of collapse too.

    Maybe you don't want to sign a Charter that costs you nothing, can do no harm, and may hedge your bets against the future, but at least go stock up on some tinned food and water for the long economic Winter ahead! ;)


  • Options
    #108
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    20Cent wrote: »
    The speed of progress in technology is moving at a very fast rate and it is getting faster all the time. A computer with abilities many times greater than the human brain is predicted within the next decade. What such a machine could design, invent fix is beyond what we know now. A huge change in how we think about society is not so unbelievable.

    This is going completely OT but I have to make comment. You will mostly find that people who are predicting breakthroughs in AI of human level intelligence anytime in the near future to be from the fields relating to computer science and other more hard sciences (e.g. physics). These claims may seem reasonable to an outside observer. However ask anyone who studies actual human and other biological intelligences and you will find deep scepticism at almost every turn. We know so little about the neurological and psychological process that go on inside the brain that we cannot hope to replicate it any-time soon.

    There is little doubt that computers will continue to get faster and faster as time progresses so that in 10 years they will be up to one hundred times faster. However AI is based more on programming than it is raw number crunching, and until we can properly describe how we think we have no hope in programming a computer to think as we think let alone better than we think.


  • Options
    #109
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    20Cent wrote: »
    The speed of progress in technology is moving at a very fast rate and it is getting faster all the time. A computer with abilities many times greater than the human brain is predicted within the next decade. What such a machine could design, invent fix is beyond what we know now. A huge change in how we think about society is not so unbelievable.


    Perhaps. Frankly I want the humans to be designing the next generation of computers, not the computers. Didn't you see Terminator?


  • Options
    #110
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Does anyone else smell a mass suicide in the offing?

    I PMed him to tell him that he is a leader of a cult, not a political ideology. And that a cult requires followers. Tragically, he hasn't got any.


  • Options
    #111
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    You've got it all wrong, silkfield. I am not defending the current system in the slightest; I'm trying to point out that your mad spaceman free-for-all is matched only in its stupidity by the strange fact that it actually has proponents such as yourself telling us that we can have one hundred ipads each and free pizza if we only ignore all of our reason and take a great leap of faith forward with you into the future.

    It is illogical and fallacious to use the failures of the current system to somehow prove your mad pizza-fest is the way forward- this type of argument doesn't make any sense.

    As much as I like pizza, no thank you. This is an utterly insane idea and it will never amount to anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    sink wrote: »
    However ask anyone who studies actual human and other biological intelligences and you will find deep skepticism at almost every turn. We know so little about the neurological and psychological process that go on inside the brain that we cannot hope to replicate it any-time soon.
    Currently on a placement in said area, can confirm doubts.


  • Options
    #113
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    One has only to skim over Boards to find out why this country is in such a mess. It is populated with short-term self-interested greedy people who don't even understand the concept of a 'bigger picture', let alone want to entertain such an idea.

    Also, your lack of faith in human nature is worrying. Out of all the people you know in your life for example, how many of them would you really trust? (I sincerely hope your answer, like mine, is the vast majority!) Those are just the people you know, but everyone you DON'T know is just a person more or less like you with the same hopes and dreams, you just haven't met them. We like to kid ourselves that we're all different, but actually we're not.

    I won't bother you any more with this stuff, but do try and remember there is a whole world out there and everyone on it is connected whether you like it or not. At the end of the day, survival is the goal. But without technology, we won't survive into the far future. We will over-populate, consume and spoil the planet recklessly, and either eat, shoot or blow-up each other. (This has already started BTW)

    The best way to release useful technology is to remove all cost restraints. Then it doesn't have to justify itself financially, it just has to be useful. This technology can provide the most efficient energy, agriculture, education, medicines, transport, water systems, the likes of which live mostly on drawings now because they are financially impractical to build.

    If you genuinely believe that our mankind's future is secure in our current economic system of cyclical debt, 'death-by-poverty' and uncontrolled pollution then you need to think again.

    That's my last word on it guys. http://www.freeworldcharter.org

    Oh and I nearly forgot to mention, if you want in on the cult I can get you in for a mere €25,000, (female blonde virgins €5,000) Just bring along your bank details and passport and we'll sort out the details... ;)


  • Options
    #114
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    silkfield wrote: »
    One has only to skim over Boards to find out why this country is in such a mess. It is populated with short-term self-interested greedy people who don't even understand the concept of a 'bigger picture', let alone want to entertain such an idea.

    I've read too much history, politics and literature to let myself be deluded by utopianism.
    Also, your lack of faith in human nature is worrying. Out of all the people you know in your life for example, how many of them would you really trust?

    At a stretch... three...
    I won't bother you any more with this stuff, but do try and remember there is a whole world out there and everyone on it is connected whether you like it or not. At the end of the day, survival is the goal. But without technology, we won't survive into the far future. We will over-populate, consume and spoil the planet recklessly, and either eat, shoot or blow-up each other. (This has already started BTW)

    There is a weird strain of messianism in your posts, an unfluttering belief that technology will eliminate scarcity and dramatically improve standards of living. This is simply not consistent with the facts. once you stray from facts and enter prophecy/religion you are ripe for ridicule.
    The best way to release useful technology is to remove all cost restraints. Then it doesn't have to justify itself financially, it just has to be useful. This technology can provide the most efficient energy, agriculture, education, medicines, transport, water systems, the likes of which live mostly on drawings now because they are financially impractical to build.

    'Cost restraints' is a nonsense argument. The past century is evidence of the 'demand and supply' fundamental of economics. If enough demand is generated for some technological device (Ranging from the motor car to the humble toaster) then it will be provided at increasingly cheaper rates. Technology is one of the few areas of economics that seems to utterly defy basic understandings of inflation. You can buy a toaster for 3 euro in lidyl. You can be connected with billions of people with a broadband connection for a mere 30 euro a month. All of this is affordable. I wonder how much you really understand economics. How, for example, will you compell a broadband technician to maintain international communication systems without remuneration? What will motivate him? Will he be able to simply leave his job some morning in order to play video games for the rest of his life? Who will support these legions of people sitting at home, getting drunk, having wild parties?

    I don't know why I bother arguing this point, you are literally a majority of one.
    If you genuinely believe that our mankind's future is secure in our current economic system of cyclical debt, 'death-by-poverty' and uncontrolled pollution then you need to think again.

    Yet the present system has over the last 100 years led to revolutionary advances in medicine, technology, theoretical physics, literacy, healthcare, education, food provision, disease prevention, communications... (And so on ad naseum)

    The world isn't perfect. Thats kind of the point.

    Just read Hobbes or Locke or someone man. Seriously.


  • Options
    #115
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Denerick wrote: »
    Perhaps. Frankly I want the humans to be designing the next generation of computers, not the computers. Didn't you see Terminator?

    Yep that is a danger.
    But do you not think its possible?
    If it can happen is usually does eventually.


  • Options
    #116
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    silkfield wrote: »
    One has only to skim over Boards to find out why this country is in such a mess.

    Can we agree on a boards wide ban on the phrase 'no wonder this country is in such a mess' its used to support any mad idea the OP can think of.

    'no wonder this place is in sush a mess if youre going to be watching eastenders'

    'no wonder the country is in such a mess if your going to drink carlsberg'

    'no wonder the country is in such a mess if your only buying medicine for yourself'

    Its PC gone mad i tell ya


  • Options
    #117
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    20Cent wrote: »
    Yep that is a danger.
    But do you not think its possible?
    If it can happen is usually does eventually.

    We've been capable of destroying ourselves via nuclear armageddon yet that hasn't happened.. yet.

    I don't know if its possible or not. I'm not a scientist and know very little about these things.


  • Options
    #118
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    We will over-populate, consume and spoil the planet recklessly, and either eat, shoot or blow-up each other. (This has already started BTW)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpKbO6O3O3M&feature=relmfu
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI&feature=relmfu

    There is all sorts of research into population and where its going. There is lots of research being done on the environment and massive increased awareness over the past decade. Have you listened to anyone besides Fresco?

    Are we really going to eat each other?

    As for a nuclear war? Not likely.


  • Options
    #119
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users Posts: 867 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    silkfield wrote: »
    One has only to skim over Boards to find out why this country is in such a mess. It is populated with short-term self-interested greedy people who don't even understand the concept of a 'bigger picture', let alone want to entertain such an idea.

    The entire world is full of such people. Everyone has these traits to some degree. You need some perspective.
    Also, your lack of faith in human nature is worrying. Out of all the people you know in your life for example, how many of them would you really trust? (I sincerely hope your answer, like mine, is the vast majority!) Those are just the people you know, but everyone you DON'T know is just a person more or less like you with the same hopes and dreams, you just haven't met them. We like to kid ourselves that we're all different, but actually we're not.

    Honestly, I don't absolutely trust anyone. I trust certain people to certain degrees more out of experience and necessity than a belief that everyone is inherently good or bad. The whole "human nature" argument is a weak one. There is no such thing. Is it human nature to be greedy/generous, forgiving/vengeful or altruistic/selfish? It is not any of these since we can all be these things at different times to different people.

    Also, it is hard for people to conceive of others outside their own social group. That's why we don't care as much about a thousand people dying in an earthquake across the world as we do about someone we know. This makes it very hard for people to empathise with others we don't know. We couldn't possibly meet everyone else in the world and become their friend, so until you address this, people are going to look after their own first.
    I won't bother you any more with this stuff, but do try and remember there is a whole world out there and everyone on it is connected whether you like it or not. At the end of the day, survival is the goal. But without technology, we won't survive into the far future. We will over-populate, consume and spoil the planet recklessly, and either eat, shoot or blow-up each other. (This has already started BTW)

    Yes we are all connected but what is your point? And you're just prophesying at this stage.
    The best way to release useful technology is to remove all cost restraints. Then it doesn't have to justify itself financially, it just has to be useful. This technology can provide the most efficient energy, agriculture, education, medicines, transport, water systems, the likes of which live mostly on drawings now because they are financially impractical to build.

    I by and large agree, practical matters aside. But that doesn't make the Venus Project the one and only way forward.
    If you genuinely believe that our mankind's future is secure in our current economic system of cyclical debt, 'death-by-poverty' and uncontrolled pollution then you need to think again.

    If you can offer an alternative, state your case and try to convince us. And saying that we should try it because it's not what we're doing is a logical fallacy. And I hate those.


  • Options
    #120
    silkfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭silkfield


    Total signatories: 3,553 in 109 countries since March 5, 2011.
    (533 new signatories in the last 24 hours - Currently averaging a new signature every 162 seconds)

    http://www.freeworldcharter.org/?a=list


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    People need to work to get something in return, it is still a fact of life. If you cannot see the benefit of having a median of exchange you are a lost cause. If a fisherman wants an iPad, but the people producing the iPads don't want fish but want beer, it means he can't have an iPad unless he can swap his fish for beer. The argument that we have machines to provide us everything for free so we can therefore abandon money has no basis in reality.

    You seem to have put some time into this given you have an ok looking website and decent looking video, but i really hope you realize how stupid this is and use your time to do something more constructive. You could be working with charity and directly helping people. You could be working to get a degree that would allow you to get a job in the lines of creating better technology in the field of robotics. But instead you are wasting time trying to convince people that we have robots to do everything for us and don't need money.


Advertisement