Question about Energy Accounting - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The solving of mankind’s problems and abolition of government via technological solutions alone.

Moderator: Kolzene

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
After recently joining this forum, I happened to stumble upon this forum. It's a very interesting concept, since I am very fond of technology and personally am amazed at how much technology has grown. Now, about Energy Accounting, it says that it is non-transferable. What does that mean? To transfer something means to convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.. If that is the case, in what way would a worker get paid?
User avatar
By ecks
But then how would a person get compensated for work that he has done? Wouldn't a person just stop working if he's not given anything in return?
By Seán Himmelb(L)au
Wow Kolzene that sounds like a really good idea... It makes me think of society as a machine that can regulate it's consumption and production. Good stuff.

Have you got any more on this?
User avatar
By Lord_Ryan
Is energy accounting a little outdated? I mean instead of getting energy credits wouldn't in a modern technocracy wouldn't you recieve a type of credit card that takes care of the energy accounting? When you talk about getting energy credits it seems like you are being paid. Wouldn't it be better to explaining it like you get a credit card that never runs out of money? It just seems to me that we are making it more complicated then it is.
By Josh
Kolzene wrote:
As for their being a maximum amount, this is largely just a book-keeping measure. As it is unlikely that many citizens will even be able to consume this much, it is unlikely to be much of an issue.

If I'm misconstruing the above in any way, please forgive me. But, if there is no maximum amount or limit to consumption, is it not plausible that greed would essentially 'take over'? I don't mean this in an end-of-society sense, nor am I making this a moral issue. What I mean is that it is somewhat a characteristic of humanity in general to just keep on taking, until you can take no more (ie overgrazing, deforestation, etc). Thus, would it not be conceivable that people would begin to just keep taking out of a wish to acquire more and more of whatever it is they desire?

I don't really like this example, but isn't it kind of like leaving a child unattended in a candy store? They see all the sweets around them and gorge out until they become sick (in most cases, unless the kid has just emerged from McDonald's or something :roll: ). Wouldn't people in essence be able to do the same?

Again, if I have misconstrued this in any way, I apologize. I'm kinda new to the idea of technocracy, though I truly do find it intriguing.
User avatar
By Mr. Anderson
No, no, there would be a maximum amount. Kolzene was just saying that the maximum amount would be so high, that most people would not even need to care about it. It would be a "book-keeping measure" as he put it.

People are the same all over, annatar. Vietnames[…]

It has started

They say turn around is fair play. But I had no […]

Up Yours Danny

I guess you just made me have an epiphany. I wil[…]

...the propaganda machine is so strong there, t[…]