I am sorry for my harsh response yesterday. I have been using my tablet and it takes ages to write anything. I was getting frustrated spending an hour on writing a comment...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am sorry for my harsh response yesterday. I have been using my tablet and it takes ages to write anything. I was getting frustrated spending an hour on writing a comment...
Thank you for you answers. You were a bit sharp in the end, yes, but that's alright. I just had a flood of work and I haven't had the time to reply sooner because I had a lot to say.
Let me just make a parenthesis to tell you a bit about my previous contacts with TVP and RBE. My first contact goes back to when the first Zeitgeist movie was released. Although the film is not actually part of the TVP, but is rather a parallel project by a sympathizing director (Peter Joseph, if I remember correctly), by the end it makes several allusions to TVP and RBE ideas. At that time, this first experience was quite mind-blowing, and it led me through a phase of intense questioning, of online research for more information, and of many conversations with friends who I had watched the movie with. By that time, I was also struggling a bit with my undergraduate studies and personal issues, so this phase died off after a while. A year or two after this, I watched Zeitgeist: Addendum, and I went through a second phase of great interest in these ideas. By that time, one of my close friends actually collaborated with the movement as a translator. It was also by that time that I inspected TVP's website and proposals more carefully. But this time around, perhaps due to changes in my mindset, I couldn't help noticing several aspects which didn't quite fit in for me. Slowly, my interest diminished and eventually I stopped following this issue altogether. In my mind, the ideas were important, noble and sincere, but they were ultimately too flawed for widespread practical application.
This bit of personal history serves to explain that I'm not at all new to the ideas behind TVP and RBE. After some years away from the subject, I happen to arrive at Steemit and stumble upon your first article on the subject. I guess my hope was that, by now, the ideas has evolved and developed considerably beyond the flawed version I had known in the past. Also, your article was well written and informative, which suggested to me that you'd be a great partner to debate with (which you have most assuredly been so far). I totally understand your point regarding the limited time you have (and everyone else), and that repeating oneself may be frustrating and tiresome. I actually went back to TVP website and read some more. But the point I wanted to make is this: one thing is to study TVP redaction of the ideas; another thing is to use it as some sort of Bible, reciting its verses as if they have been divinely inspired, and systematically resorting to the scripture as a means to answer the doubts of the "pagans" like me. I'm sure that you have your own personal thoughts and formulations of the RBE ideas, and that's what drives me to debate with you. If it comes to the point that this debate adds nothing to reading the entire "official literature", then it will become pointless. Please, don't take these words the wrong way. All I'm saying is that I want to debate with you, not Jacques Fresco. He had his vision, and you have yours. Let's explore your vision.
Now, I'd like to address your answers to my questions.
My first question was just be sure. I think I can understand how private property concepts would tend to become unimportant for people sharing the specific set of values (not just the scientific principles, but also the morals implied) implicated in the acceptance of RBE. I don't pretend to discuss the goodness of this set of values, but I am really doubtful of their widespread acceptance among such a big number of highly diverse people with different social, cultural and civilizational backgrounds. One of the major arguments I might use to defend this opinion is the historical retrospective. When was it that humanity collectively came to agree upon a single set of values and work together around them? I mean, even populations living within relatively small geographical boundaries tended to divide into different tribal and interest groups. I can concede that the times are different, the technological means are different, and they might be the missing variable in attaining this collective realization. I just can't help being extremely skeptic about it.
There are several kinds of reasons for the appeal of private property which are not necessarily related with scarcity or monetary economy. Collectors, for example, illustrate well the psychological appeal to accumulate things. Also, people often like to personalize their stuff to better match their tastes or needs, which is difficult to do if everything is shared. Furthermore, people tend to be more cautious with their own things than with things which they do not own, namely state owned things (this is actually very variable, and there can be many people who do not follow this trend).
It seems to me very difficult to implement such a production and distribution system which guarantees, everywhere and everywhen, that anyone can have access to anything. I did that list of products just to illustrate how many different kinds of stuff one might want access to, many of them in an essentially unpredictable manner. How can you always have such a big stock of everything?
You suggested a technology similar to 3D printing which could maybe solve this by letting people produce whatever they needed very quickly. I find this a more or less plausible idea, but one which we are still technologically far from achieving.
I also included some potentially controversial products in the list on purpose. Is there a scientific reason not to have weapons? What about sports with weapons, like archery or shooting? What if we come to contact with hostile alien lifeforms int he future and need to defend ourselves? (This last example is a bit farfetched, I admit, but there is no scientific reason to disregard it). Also, from your answer, I understand that alcohol, drugs and tobacco would be available to everyone. Would there be laws to prevent substance abuse and child consumption? How would that be enforced? Or would this not be taken as an issue?
The part about people voluntarily providing free services does not seem to conform to efficiency standards. I mean, it would be very likely that more people would want to provide more desirable services, with only a few people volunteering to provide less desirable ones. This system would not guarantee a balanced access to services. I understand that it would be transient while we didn't have the androids, but it's not like we are anywhere near such a technological achievement. Mechanical or repetitive tasks is one thing, but tasks requiring social interactions and intuitive reasoning are still not very adequate to be performed by robots. I don't see a robot providing psychological counseling, for example, or babysitting.
Also, I should not have used the term "prostitution", but rather "sexual services". I mean, it's obvious there would not be prostitutes in the rigorous sense, because they would not be paid. What I was referring to is people or machines providing sexual services. If I were living in this society and wanted to have sex but was unable to find a willing partner, would there be sexual services for me to go to and satisfy my desire?
Finally, I'm not sure if horseriding necessarily implies animal abuse. Is training a dog to sniff for drugs or cadavers animal abuse? I'm pretty sure there are horseriders who establish very empathetic relationships with their horses and who know very well how to respect them and ride them without degrading their condition.
I hope you will find it worth it to try answering my questions and getting on with our discussions. I'd like that very much.
Re 1. RBE would never be introduced with global consensus. TVP never claimed so. It is impossible. Some countries would experiment with such cities, then others would join later once their value system is mature enough.
In RBE no one is stopping you from creating and keeping your art or collections. Actually RBE supports creativity and individual designs. For example, people can design their own house (according to sustainable principles and pre fab elements), or create their own objects at home using 3D printers.
Re 2. Nothing would be enforced. The value system does not condition people to be attracted to primitive values.
If people want to do archery or shooting, they are welcome. It is just a hobby not violent behaviour.
If alien life form threatened humanity then obviously RBE society try to design a weapon to protect humanity. Nothing wrong in act of self defense.
Re 3.There would be universities and training centres where interested people can learn such skills as psychology and counselling. Just like it is now.
"
If I were living in this society and wanted to have sex but was unable to find a willing partner, would there be sexual services for me to go to and satisfy my desire"
Oppression of sexuality and seeing body as shameful will not exist in RBE value system. This psychologically detrimental values are part of this culture.
RBE will be sexually open enough so you would have no problem finding partners for sex.
You don't whip or ride a dog, and you do not keep him locked up (hopefully). I did horse riding years ago when I have different state of mind. Horses are not as docile as dogs. They are not born to be ridden. Trust me, no horse can be trained to be ridden without intimidating it and violence.
Thank you for your answers.
I see several problems with that approach as well:
a) Most of the technology needed for a true RBE city to work is unavailable or very expensive. This means that there are many things you can't experiment yet. The main point is that you would not be actually experimenting with the ideal conditions proposed by RBE; instead, you'd be performing a very incomplete and inaccurate experiment of not necessarily consistent bits and pieces of RBE. I'm not sure if this would be a successful approach.
b) Who would pay for the construction and operation of prototypical cities? National governments? What would be their motivations to do it? Civil movements? And what would be the legal frame for these cities? Would national and international laws just not apply there? Would it be no one's land? I mean, I can't just start a whole new social structure and expect the existing structure to leave me be. Almost all the territory and resources are under the administration of governments and corporations. How would you negotiate the terms with these institutions?
c) Also, you are making a moral judgement and a leap of faith by assuming that RBE is more mature than other systems, and that all other people would, in due time, unavoidably want to hop on. I'm not saying that it is less mature either; I'm just saying that, even with its tentative scientific basis and rational innovative approach, it is arguable if RBE is overall more desirable than a more smooth progress within the existing paradigm or not.
d) Again, you assume that people would end up gathering around a common shared set of values, just not simultaneously. While a subset of values might be easily shared, I don't have any reason (historical or behavioral) to believe that an entire set of values will ever be universal within the human population.
If people are allowed to practice shooting or archery, then these kinds of weapons must be available to the public, right? However, besides an abstract set of values, nothing would inhibit people from using these weapons to harm other people or creatures. I mean, someone can have a breakdown, or a psychotic episode, and start shooting people in the street (a bit farfetched again, but still possible). If there is no legal system, how does the RBE society deal with these events?
Regarding the (farfetched) possibility of an alien threat, if humanity didn't already have an arsenal by that time, we would probably never get the chance to build one. You can't just tell them: wait a few days for us to arm ourselves and kick your asses, please.
I'll concede on the horseriding part, because I actually don't know that much about it. But the sexual part doesn't seem right to me. It might be true that RBE values would promote openness and not repression. However, I might just not be sexually desirable; I might be extremely ugly, or I might have some weird sexual fetiches and have a hard time finding someone willing to fulfill them. Saying that you wouldn't have problems finding partners is just wishful thinking, and not a true necessary consequence of RBE values.
I insist on this sexual topic because it is also an issue in our current society, and not just because of conservative or shame promoting values. Let's not think about prostitution for now, but consider the pornographic industry. Why is this such a large industry, with so many consumers from so many different contexts (even people who lead very satisfying sex lives)? Apparently, many people want this kind of product, and not because of a specific set of values (again, it's a widespread market encompassing many different contexts). My question boils down to this: if there was even one person that wished to have access to sexual services (someone or something to have sex with, or some sexual act to observe), shouldn't RBE be able to provide them?
This special feature of market systems, which tend to provide products and services to match demands, regardless of moral standards or even legal barriers, is something which I find very appealing. Actually, markets (not only legal markets, but parallel and black markets as well) arise very naturally from this interface between a demand which is willing to compensate for products and services and a supply which is willing to provide these products and services for compensation. Legal markets build upon this natural social interaction and make it much more sophisticated and artificial, but informal markets are still very common and operate much closer to these natural roots. Somewhere between highly constrained market structures and totally free ones, I believe we may have a system which maximizes the fulfillment of people's demands.
Now, aspects of efficiency, sustainability and equity should not be overlooked, of course. These (and probably more) issues should be the guiding lines to develop proper regulations for the performance of markets. We're still lacking much, but it cannot be said that we haven't made any progress in those directions.
Pornography just like prostitution is a product/behaviour of the sexually representative system that evolved around patriarchal exploitation of women. Sexual fetishes can be also traced to unsustainable value system with certain behavioural-psychological conditioning since birth.
Sex is not service or product. You cannot seem to go beyond the commodity based view of human sexuality ingrown in our culture. No one is going to provide you sexual services as it is not something to be served as a product unless someone would volunteer to offer having sex with someone who is for example disabled. In RBE sex is voluntary agreement between people not a commodity.
As explained in TVP articles, books and faq, there would need to be agreement between some countries to create legal framework and finance it first city.
The alien argument does not make sense. Neither would we have technology and weapons to defend ourselves nowadays. If we were invaded we would be unlikely to resist even in next 30 years probably due to high tech gap between us and aliens.
As explained above. Want to make a bow in rbe, you are welcome to craft it and play with it.
About rate cases of socially dangerous behaviour such mental illness and brain damage causing someone to be violent. TVP has no answer to it but I am not tvp robot, so in my version if rbe i would apply solution as volunteering guardian of society if such evens show up. Everyone is trained and can become a guardian when such even occurs nearby so they can act in self defense or protect others. Would have access to weapon when needed in special distribution centre when there is danger from some rare psychotic episode.
This was a very good question.
I'd say that pornography might have started around a "patriarchal exploitation of women", but nowadays it goes way beyond that, so I think that this particular criticism misses the point. And regarding sexual fetishes as being invariably related with "unsustainable value system with certain behavioural-psychological conditioning since birth" seems a bit of a stretch, as if there was a right way to experience sexuality and alternative ways were psychological disorders. Actually, from a scientific point of view, fetishes are not considered pathological as long as they are not the cause of psychological distress or limited personal functionality. Furthermore, no conclusive cause for fetishes has ever been established by science. I wonder... Is yours a scientific statement or a moral judgement?
Sex is not a commodity, but the question of whether it might or not be a valid service is more of a political or moral nature rather than scientific. It is a fact that too many people nowadays are still victims of human trafficking and exploitation for sexual purposes, and that is something which I completely oppose. There are, however, many people working in the sex and porn industries which do it free from any coercion, particularly in places where these practices are legalized and well regulated. This is the beauty of the market system: demand tends to provide the market with signals for creating supply. As long as this happens in an adequately regulated fashion which addresses all important human, social and environmental issues, I don't see the issue with it.
So, the first experiments presuppose a deep governmental interest and sponsorship. While I do not argue that no efforts should be made by governments to experiment with these ideas (I usually am for experimenting), given the dimension of the proposal, TVP must first approach both governments and the scientific community with a clearly defined experimental protocol which would be subject to scrutiny. Has this been done? Has TVP published any research or experimental proposal in peer-reviewed literature?
About the alien thing, I said it was farfetched from the beginning and I think you're absolutely right. It just doesn't make sense.
I didn't understand the part about making a "bow in RBE". What does this mean?
I'll go ahead and accept that it might be feasible to have an effective number of said guardians with competence to intervene in self-defense and protection of civilians. But then what? How is this person to dealt with after the attack and how are eventual victims to compensated?