"It only makes sense to speak about a disorder if this behavior or taste effectively impairs the functionality of the person in a meaningful way."
That's what I said above - intense difficulties in personal relationships and/or psychological distress.
Also need to add abuse/exploiting factor towards society around. Sociopaths may not have distress or difficulty in personal relationship (as they may have no need to create any - subjectively feel content about it) but their behaviour is violent-exploitative towards society/others.
If the person does not suffer from these while being urinated on then it is not unsustainable psychologically or part of the disorder.
"everybody who is a sex worker is coerced to do so, why is it that there are famous pornstars (both male and female), for example? "
Please, go back to read what I wrote again - letting your body being exploited for economic reasons (economic coercion, survival reasons).
Besides your argument is logically fallacious. You can achieve success or mastery in your own slavery or coercion, especially when you are so oblivious to the fact that you are coerced or exploited to that you start cherishing your own exploitation.
"That might be true of pop psychology which abounds throughout the general and entertainment media. That might have been true of early proposals like Freud's psychoanalysis or Jung's analytical psychology. "
Yes, that is psychology I meant. It is not completely pop as it is still partially practised by so called psychologists. Of course, I do not mean mean scientific behavioral faculties such as behavioral biology, behavioral genetics, behavioral evolution, neuroscience etc.
"Are you sure you are familiar with the basic concepts of market and monetary systems"
Yes, I know the difference between market (or barter) system and monetary system.
"impede us to function as is expected within a normative society. "
You must have heard that saying.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to profoundly sick society"
I've heard that phrase many times ("It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to profoundly sick society"), and I quite agree with it, but not completely. I mean, if a large number of people feel maladjusted to the social constructs by which they are bound, that should certainly signal that something is wrong with those constructs. However, I still believe that, in many cases, the healthiest attitude is to adapt as best as you can without abandoning a critical stance towards your environment. Those are usually the people who most contribute to social changes, not the ones who are too maladapted to function properly.
You point regarding sociopaths is also fair. I was just considering psychological disorders which concern the individual, but those who violently disrupt social order may also be often considered within the spectrum of a psychological disorder.
There are doctors which are proponents of such things as reiki and homeopathy. Does that make medicine a pseudoscience? Certainly not, because personal beliefs and practices of certain doctors are not what makes up medicine. In the same fashion, the fact that there are psychologists using tarot readings or rudimentary Freudian psychoanalysis does not mean that the majority of the scientific psychological community endorse or find these practices scientifically justified. Psychology is not pseudoscience; it may be a young science, and it may sometimes suffer from difficulties in experimental design and replication (as may any other scientific field), but it is a science, and a very relevant one.
Back to the RBE topic, you have not responded to my several statements regarding the fact that a RBE chooses to provide certain products and services or not based on moral judgements in addition to scientific considerations. I think this should be clear by now, and I bring it up again because moral decisions have a large political dimension. I wish to stress this point again: there is no feasible way to eliminate political discourse altogether from a social system, because science may inform moral decisions, but it does not settle them. Science may provide solutions regarding the efficiency and sustainability of production and distribution means, but it has a very hard time objectively deciding which products and services are legitimate or not. Also, how much should be available of each thing to each person? Is it an "all-you-can-eat" sort of thing, or would there be quotas? If so, who establishes them? Would quotas be equal for everyone? Again, while science may inform these questions, their decisions are ultimately political in nature.
You also haven't addressed one of my previous questions which concerned the publication of peer-reviewed literature of RBE ideas and proposals. All I am aware of is TVP website and a couple of totally one-sided books. How is RBE to be seriously taken as a scientific endeavor if it does not participate in the scientific ecosystem? How are RBE ideas to garner interest from governments to invest in them if they do not present concrete and comprehensive experimental protocols to the scientific community and to political institutions?
Finally, there was someone else commenting in this article in these terms: how is the simple introduction of automation going to transform finite resources into abundant ones? This is something which totally baffles me. I get the efficiency gains, which can prolong the sustainability of certain resources, but it will never change the fact that they are finite.
Those doctors and psychologists bring bad name and disgrace to these professions and fields.
Anyway, All your points are valid. I will need to figure out scientific way to solve these problems. RBE is not perfect system and it can't be due to its constant change.
Of course RBE is not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect system. And perfection is made even more unattainable if you consider that things tend to change overtime, requiring that the system changes somewhat with them. I praise your willingness to better develop the RBE ideas.
The problem is that many systems are established (like current) one which means that they are very resistant to change. Also guardians of the status quo of these systems claim that they are perfect or they try to reach perfection (which is utopian thinking). Current system is an utopian one. It reached a point where there is little change, just repetitiin of thr same mistakes over and over again.
About RBE "politics". Let me quote something short from
the book " The Best That Money Can't Buy" by J. Fresco.
"The conflict today between human beings is about opposing values. If we manage
to arrive at a saner future, conflicts will be about problems common to all humans. In a
vibrant and emergent culture instead of conflicts between nations, the challenges will be
overcoming scarcity, reclaiming damaged environments, creating innovative
technologies, increasing agricultural yield, improving communications, building
communications between nations, sharing technologies, and living a meaningful life."
About performing peer reviewed, replicated studies of RBE by scientific community. It does not make sense. You cannot test whole social system in a lab, same as you cannot test in a lab or computer communism, socialism, fascism, capitalism etc. You can test certain technologies and designs that are part of RBE city. That is why TVP proposes building whole experimental city to research and test it and use it to learn and improve. Just like Eden Project but on much larger scale. It would require inhabitants identified (RBE values) with updated value system though, which is the hardest part to find.