$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '
')Welcome to the world of Technocracy, Energy based currencies and all that stuff. The only reservation I have with fully adopting their values, is how to assess the impact of a scientist/engineer and possible reward.
PeakOil is You
Technocracy
Technocracy
by JohnDenver » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:00:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Energyspin, let's figure out the remaining issues with Technocracy, since it would seem to be a logical paradigm for preserving civilized values and their applications. Ultimately it seems to be inescapable: an economy based on energy and resources.
Hubbert's point about equal distribution of goods is interesting. Strictly speaking he's correct (we're all getting freebies from stored energy, therefore cut the charades about individual contributions and distribute equitably), though that ends up leading to something like socialism, which isn't my idea of utopia.
EnergySpin and gg3, you are both concerned about the lack of incentives in the Hubbert system, but I'd like to get your input on possible synergies between Hubbert's ideas about equal distribution, and the free software model (Linux, Wikipedia).
-------------
For reference
Hubbert's idea:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')etting something for nothing
In the distribution to the public of the products of industry, the failure of the present system is the direct result of the faulty premise upon which it is based. This is: that somehow a man is able by his personal services to render to society the equivalent of what he receives, from which it follows that the distribution to each shall be in accordance with the services rendered and that those who do not work must not eat. This is what our propagandists call 'the impossibility of getting something for nothing.' Aside from the fact that only by means of the sophistries of lawyers and economists can it be explained how, on this basis, those who do nothing at all frequently receive the largest shares of the national income, the simple fact is that it is impossible for any man to contribute to the social system the physical equivalent of what it costs the system to maintain him form birth till death--and the higher the physical standard of living the greater is this discrepancy. This is because man is an engine operating under the limitations of the same physical laws as any other engine. The energy that it takes to operate him is several times as much as any amount of work he can possibly perform. If, in addition to his food, he receives also the products of modern industry, this is due to the fact that material and energy resources happen to be available and, as compared with any contribution he can make, constitute a free gift from heaven. Stated more specifically, it costs the social system on the North American Continent the energy equivalent to nearly 10 tons of coal per year to maintain one man at the average present standard of living, and no contribution he can possibly make in terms of the energy conversion of his individual effort will ever repay the social system the cost of his social maintenance. Is it not to be wondered at, therefore, that a distributive mechanism based upon so rank a fallacy should fail to distribute; the marvel is that it has worked as well as it has. Since any human being, regardless of his personal contribution, is a social dependent with respect to the energy resources upon which society operates, and since every operation within a given society is effected at the cost of a degradation of an available supply of energy, this energy degradation, measured in appropriate physical units such as kilowatt-hours, constitutes the common physical cost of all social operations. Since also the energy-cost of maintaining a human being exceeds by a large amount his ability to repay, we can abandon the fiction that what one is to receive is in payment for what one has done, and recognize that what we are really doing is utilizing the bounty that nature has provided us. Under these circumstances we recognize that we all are getting something for nothing, and the simplest way of effecting distribution is on a basis of equality, especially so when it is considered that production can be set equal to the limit of our capacity to consume, commensurate with adequate conservation of our physical resources.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3800.html
Background on technocracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement
An very interesting online novel illustrating technocratic ideas:
Manna
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Technocracy
by JohnDenver » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 08:07:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'H')ubbert's point about equal distribution of goods is interesting. Strictly speaking he's correct (we're all getting freebies from stored energy, therefore cut the charades about individual contributions and distribute equitably), though that ends up leading to something like socialism, which isn't my idea of utopia.
gg3, do you regard Linux and Wikipedia as socialist? They return no incentives/rewards, and the product is given freely and equally to all.
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
