[Figlio di Moros]

How exactly would energy accounting be used to replace the monetary system, and what effects would it have on human behavior?

[Figlio di Moros]

I suppose I'm not convinced of the abundance needed for such a system to work; there's still be labor required in order for such a system to work, and how would you entice people to provide the necessary sacrifice required to operate the system when an abudance of material goods rests at their fingertips already?

[Wolfman]

In addition, since there is no need to budget some form of income (money, labor credits, energy credits), how do you know people wont start buying random crap that they don't need? For example, a celebrity is going to buy whatever they want when they get money. 5 cars, 3 houses, and on, and on, and on. Whats going to stop the general population from doing this same thing? And what's going to stop people from doing drugs? I understand the lack of need for money will stop most crimes based on financial need, but some people commit crimes just to commit crime, and many people who do drugs, are basicly addicted.

[Figlio di Moros]

there's still be labor required in order for such a system to work, and how would you entice people to provide the necessary sacrifice required to operate the system when an abudance of material goods rests at their fingertips already?

Well actually, there are a lot of reasons. The short answer I'll give you here. First of all, since Technocracy would be maximizing automation, two things happen from that that affect this issue: One is that there would be very little actual work needed from people to keep the Technate operating. Hence, only so many people are needed in the technical professions, while others can engage in things like sciences, arts, or social work, even just raising a family.

Right, but do we have any proof that automation exists at the level where that would be plausible? We couldn't automate a construction scene, for example, and according to the link you posted, people wouldn't likely choose to do construction. Furthermore, even if our assembly-lines, transportation, etc. are fully automated, we'd still require a vast number mechanics, electricians, and a number of engineers in order to run them, and such occupations aren't necessarily very rewarding in and of themselves. Most people I know choose those professions due to pay, not initiative. Furthermore, those jobs typically requiring an IQ of atleast 115, a standard deviation above the mean, meaning that they're not just restricted to the people possessing the will but also the skill; while eugenics or reprogenetics could increase the percentage of high-intellegence people, it could take a few generations.

Second is that those jobs that remain are for the most part going to be ones that people actually want to do, for whatever reason. In other words, no more McDonald's jobs, no ditch-digging, no assembly-line work, etc. So I think that your framing the question in terms of "sacrifice" is inaccurate. There are many people already that simply would like to just be able to do their jobs and let society benefit, but many of them are held back by needing to work in "marketable" jobs instead, catering to corporate-consumerist interests. If you remove their need to earn a living, they'd be freed to accomplish all sorts of things. There are lots of examples of this if you look for them.

As I already stated, construction, farming, etc. would still require some workers; while we could get rid of picking fruit, raising cattle can't be completely automated. Even more so, the amount of workers needed in the fields might not be as low as you suspect, either. What about fishing? Crabbing? Claming?

Then there are other factors, such as the lack of consumerist culture making people think that their self-worth is linked to material possessions and income rather than accomplishments, and proper education in the Technate would make sure that everyone knew how and why their abundance is able to be produced and why some people are needed in certain professions, and some people would respond to that. There's lots of stuff actually. You can read more about it here.

That's an aweful big assumption- granted, I could see a lot of spending go down without that mindset, but you'd have people feel more free to drink and party all the time. People are social animals, and many people would be inclined to spend as much time as possible being social and not necessarily working. You'd have to have accomplishments be added to the social hierarchy, otherwise you'd very likely end up with a giant high school; a lot of sports, partying, maybe raising your family if you have one, but not a lot of desire to work.[/quote]

[Figlio di Moros]

How would you combat a rise in demand? Part of what defines "abundance" is supply above the limit of demand, and as our production has grown, so has our demand for new products. Without the restrictive capabilities of a currency system, demand for new products would rise; for instance, I'd have a second truck just for mudding, an ATV, a snowmobile. Others would want new phones, iPad's, etc. With a limited supply of resources and energy, how would we ensure these products fit demand that could rise, with a set amount of inputs?

This isn't simply just a technological function; what about farming? There's a limited amount of food stock, which can already be destructive to the environment in production while "over abundant" and leading to diseases of affluence. If the prescribed solution is "raise production"(not necessarily practical, however), it does nothing to address the problems of over eating or respond to the problems of over-farming. This would potentially be compounded by waste of foodstuffs, there being no "moral hazard"(sorry to use the term) to discourage waste.

Of course, there's a third sect with uncontrolled supply- for personal goods. Even if there's an abundance of food, not all chefs are created equal, nor are all artists, athletes, etc. What means would exist to ensure an equitable distribution of seats(or expansion of seats), poems, original artwork, etc?

I apologize for the necro, but seemed better than to create a new thread to readress a subject half a page down.

[Arie]

How would you combat a rise in demand? Part of what defines "abundance" is supply above the limit of demand, and as our production has grown, so has our demand for new products. Without the restrictive capabilities of a currency system, demand for new products would rise; for instance, I'd have a second truck just for mudding, an ATV, a snowmobile. Others would want new phones, iPad's, etc. With a limited supply of resources and energy, how would we ensure these products fit demand that could rise, with a set amount of inputs?

You seem to be ignoring Kolzene's answer that you would not need to own that second truck, the ATV, of a snowmobile, as you'll be able to use them when you need to, as will others, without having it stored unused 90% of the time, which is wasteful. This will require producing fewer trucks, ATV's etc. to satisfy the actual usage need, and thus be more efficient.

This isn't simply just a technological function; what about farming? There's a limited amount of food stock, which can already be destructive to the environment in production while "over abundant" and leading to diseases of affluence. If the prescribed solution is "raise production"(not necessarily practical, however), it does nothing to address the problems of over eating or respond to the problems of over-farming. This would potentially be compounded by waste of foodstuffs, there being no "moral hazard"(sorry to use the term) to discourage waste.

On the contrary, the amount of production will be based on need, as overproduction will have no potential benefit or profit to the speculating producer, as it does today. This of course requires a refinement of the condition of "abundance" to "potential abundance", which is to say that anything we need can be produced as needed, not necessarily that it has to be produced. So perhaps my understanding is at odds with the defenders of technocracy as described in this subforum.

Of course, there's a third sect with uncontrolled supply- for personal goods. Even if there's an abundance of food, not all chefs are created equal, nor are all artists, athletes, etc. What means would exist to ensure an equitable distribution of seats(or expansion of seats), poems, original artwork, etc?

I agree that trade, negotiations, and agreements should continue when it comes to personal things we want from other people. Things like Art and Music, sports and entertainment where our interest is in their creators' expressions, or their personalities, their bodies and souls, just as in choosing mates and partners. Basically, the way performers make a living today. But the big distinction would be that our physical livelihood would not be dependent on these social personal arrangements.

I'm new to this technocracy subforum, but I tend to agree with the concept. It does require a paradigm shift regarding the economy that we are not willing to make as a society, apparently. For the most part, we do not live in a world of natural scarcity, and it makes no sense to use methods developed for such a world.

[MB.]

Figlio, please take the time to read the Technocracy Study Guide before wasting our time again.

[Social_Critic]

This sure sounds like something written by the same guy who wrote Battlefield Earth.

[Wolfman]

This sure sounds like something written by the same guy who wrote Battlefield Earth.

It was actually developed in the 1920s.

[Figlio di Moros]

You seem to be ignoring Kolzene's answer that you would not need to own that second truck, the ATV, of a snowmobile, as you'll be able to use them when you need to, as will others, without having it stored unused 90% of the time, which is wasteful. This will require producing fewer trucks, ATV's etc. to satisfy the actual usage need, and thus be more efficient.

That sounds a bit estranged from reality- a truck, an ATV, and a snowmobile all serve different functions, as does a mudding truck and street-legal truck. I fail to see how we'd "require less"; if anybody who wants one can have one, then one's required for everyone, as well as parts, maintanance, and replacement, even if shared. You haven't described how you'd prevent demand from rising to the level of production...

On the contrary, the amount of production will be based on need, as overproduction will have no potential benefit or profit to the speculating producer, as it does today. This of course requires a refinement of the condition of "abundance" to "potential abundance", which is to say that anything we need can be produced as needed, not necessarily that it has to be produced. So perhaps my understanding is at odds with the defenders of technocracy as described in this subforum.

Perhaps you could explain that in laymen's terms- agriculture isn't something that can be produced at will. You have to prepare well ahead of time to meet demand, and have to include some portion above that incase of a rise in demand. If we're basing agricultural production off of demand, we have to assume the year before's demand is roughly accurate.

Currently, the American "abundance" of foodstuffs creates an increase rise in demand of foodstuffs, propogating our "diseases of affluence". The same issue would arise under technocracy, that increases in agricultural productions would increase demands, as people would more easily be able to access food. This both increases demand on "production", aka increased farming efforts, and health risks. As a result, there's the potential to "overfarm" and ruin the soil.

The easy solution would be to reduce or limit production of agricultural goods, but that would create a "scarcity" of goods. The question is, how would technocracy preserve the principle of "abundance" in agriculture, while limiting production to prevent over-farming?

[MB.]

then one's required for everyone,

Have you ever rented a car? paid rent on a home? Lived in someone else's house? Been to a library? This concept is so simple and basic it is astounding that you don't understand it.

The question is, how would technocracy preserve the principle of "abundance" in agriculture, while limiting production to prevent over-farming?

Farming is currently done on 'brute force' industrial scale. There are much more efficient means of production, such as hydroponics.

[Arie]

That sounds a bit estranged from reality- a truck, an ATV, and a snowmobile all serve different functions, as does a mudding truck and street-legal truck. I fail to see how we'd "require less"; if anybody who wants one can have one, then one's required for everyone, as well as parts, maintanance, and replacement, even if shared.

Not everyone who needs to use a truck, etc. needs to do it at the same time. An estimate of the maximum number that would be needed simultaneously can be made, with an additional buffer or margin of error amount. I expect that this number would be considerably lower than providing a truck for everyone who needs it.

You haven't described how you'd prevent demand from rising to the level of production...

You haven't explained how increasing the level of production would increase demand in a technocracy. You believe it based on assumptions of human behavior in a scarcity economy. In fact, the over-abundance of air reduces its economic value to zero, and no one hordes it or increases their consumption of air to match its supply.

Perhaps you could explain that in laymen's terms- agriculture isn't something that can be produced at will. You have to prepare well ahead of time to meet demand, and have to include some portion above that incase of a rise in demand. If we're basing agricultural production off of demand, we have to assume the year before's demand is roughly accurate.

Of course it is produced at will. But here's always some lag between a request and its fulfillment, whether its just the time required to communicate the request, the time it takes to deliver, or the time it takes to produce. Technology is constantly reducing that time. As today, production is based on anticipated demand, to the extent possible. The difference is that there would be no incentive to artificially induce demand, as we do today through advertising, and there would be no incentive to produce more than needed because one's livelihood would not be dependent on this unnecessary production, as it is today. Why do you think so many people are telemarketers? Was it their life's ambition? Is their work productive? For whom?

Currently, the American "abundance" of foodstuffs creates an increase rise in demand of foodstuffs, propogating our "diseases of affluence".

It's not the abundance that creates the demand, its the need for for the salesmen (including farmers) to make a living by selling, that creates the excess demand.

The same issue would arise under technocracy, that increases in agricultural productions would increase demands, as people would more easily be able to access food. This both increases demand on "production", aka increased farming efforts, and health risks. As a result, there's the potential to "overfarm" and ruin the soil.

I understand that this is what you believe. But I have absolutely no reason to believe it, based on the arguments I've already made above. I think your view is rooted in current economic paradigms of work, production, supply and demand which do not take a full account of the rapidly developing technology, and are therefore in need of change.

The easy solution would be to reduce or limit production of agricultural goods, but that would create a "scarcity" of goods. The question is, how would technocracy preserve the principle of "abundance" in agriculture, while limiting production to prevent over-farming?

There's no need to produce at a greater rate than we're already doing, and have done for some time. There's no real scarcity. The scarcity is created by preventing people from accessing food and other items that have already been produced, and shelving them under guard until the consumer pays. This is necessary because in the present system, this is how the seller makes a living. I don't believe this would be necessary in any system. There can be alternatives.