Join the new world

There is only one solution for this planet....baptising heretics in their own blood and with that saving them from damnation in hell.

And when heretics and their false reptilian teachings are no longer preventing spiritual progress of humanity....the world will be one big garden of Eden.

Human rulers without faith in The Word of Heavens will always be slaves of their own fears and personal issues.

REPENT!
ACCEPT THE WORD OF HEAVENS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

ffs you still haven't give up.

Praise the determined VK!

What kind of religious fanatic freak would i be if i would just give up.

He he

I love you, but you're living in unreachable dreams. Unfortunatly 🙂

Food is not free though, someone had to stop being lazy arse and produce that food...
Also, this technology is like eRepublik, he goes like: "Play me!" and we're all like "Yes Sir".

Voted for socialism and good intentions o/

Be optimistic friend. Self-Operating Machinery will produce that food. Technology today is only making minor progress in sustainable productivity, rather most technology focuses on consumerist satisfaction/amusement. But progress is still being made. Machinery is already doing jobs that humans once did.

Over time, companies will continue to cut labour and replace it with machinery, as it's cheaper and usually more efficient. This can be done in the farming industry. The government's only way to stop the inevitable replacement of human labour is to enforce regulations on the percent of human labour major companies are able to replace. Or else, they'll have no choice but to provide supplies to a huge unemployed population who were cut from their jobs or face serious problems.

The path to this will be deprivatization and growing welfare/social programs. I guarantee overtime these programs will grow, both due to this and the lack of population control.

church is not a building church is a group of people that worship God and follow his word. Therefore to say you will take away a church is not possible because you have a misconception of that the meaning of a church is.

but it is important that a person learned in the word spread the word and explain the word to his flock and therefore convenient that they gather each week to listen to his message and doing this in a building so that it does not rain on them etc etc.

but church is not a building according to bible. church is a group of believers.

A group of believers who believe in a myth.

thats ok if we are wrong we are worm food if your wrong your toasted arbuckle. if your right your worm food if we are right we are in heaven.

yep yours is the best choice 😉

but on earth you will believe in santa and walk around saying u do

One man's utopia is another dystopia. This is no exception. Living in a world without a free market sounds about as fun as just dying. The underlying problem with socialism in its purest sense is that it corrodes the mind and soul - removing any need for self-preservation or separating people by strata that exist in reality (ie the strata built from work ethic, talent, etc. ) - by treating parasite and provider equally. Are a doctor and a beggar REALLY entitled to the same rations, just because they share a species? Of course not.

To wit, as my good friend Churchill put it:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Capitalism isn't perfect, nothing is. The only this that comes close is Voluntaryism (such as that proposed by Rothbard), sometimes referred to as Anarcho-Capitalism. Again, that's my personal utopia which - to someone like you - is dystopia.

TL😉R: If you ruled the world, I would be most displeased.

if u have plenty of food and resources through technology why not? Give it away for free. The intelligent people can work on something better than mundane menial jobs.

No doubt socialism isn't perfect, but capitalism is simply not sustainable, and socialism is far more sustainable. The difference in the two ideologies, or even mentalities, is also the priority of self-preservation over mankind preservation as a whole. Without a doubt some will see a world where you can be who you want and do what you want, without having to work your whole life to pay the bills, as a life that's boring and soulless. A life with a free basic boring home like everyone else, and free basic food. I see it as a dream, a distant dream, but one that is more possible than you think with advancements in technology. There is still a market system. People can receive more than food from the government's machine industry output, and use those resources to compete with "free"

I'd argue against that. Fundamentally, socialism relies heavily on abundance enough to sustain a population - the higher the population the more resources needed. Capitalism relies on scarcity and competition, and is much more natural than socialism in regards to resources (Darwin, anyone?). The reason pure socialism will remain a dream is because it relies on logic and reason taking long holidays from which they will never return. It's a pretty dream, one where we can all fat ourselves like hogs on the government teat, but it's just not sustainable, not possible for a society to run well - especially on a massive scale.

In RL, I'm an Anarchist who sees capitalism as completely unsustainable, which will lead to socialism inevitably, whether it's labeled socialism or not. Socialism will establish the sustainable structure needed to push mankind forward into its next chapter, whatever the government type(s) are from there.

The fact is socialism has always been about manual labour with bountiful returns. I'm talking little to no labour rather. As I mentioned earlier in the article, population control is coming to many nations in the future because the population is growing faster than our resources are being gathered. I would use machinery to produce massive supplies for free, for a population which is kept at a sustainable level, not to expand too rapidly until we find home elsewhere than Earth.

Socialism has never been implemented correctly, nor has capitalism. But one in theory allows too much liberty for an ignorant and selfish species to be sustainable. The other takes the liberty or soul out to ensure sustainability. People today pop a handful of children out, without acknowledging that their grandkids will be paying more for water than for gasoline. It has to stop somewhere.

Funny thing is, in RL I'm an anarcho-capitalist; so with you as an anarcho-socialist we're two sides of the same coin. I think it's a fallacy to think that "capitalism is dead. Long live socialism". How will it be sustainable? The short answer is it won't be, unless massive (rea😛 unrealistically high) levels of sacrifice are made. Anarcho-capitalism has the benefit of working along the lines of reality: with both nature and human intuition.

Capitalism doesn't deny the need for manual labour, in fact it thrives on it. However, capitalism has the higher advantage of keeping prices stable and fair - whilst ensuring no one has "too much power". This is the fundamental issue with anarcho-socialism: who's going to run the massive factories? Socialism can only pray to function with a massive government, which is the very antithesis of true anarchy.

Under anarcho-capitalism, all what you promise is possible, and more; however equity remains intact and no one leeches off the system. Why have a system with NO labour? For a hedonist, that sounds wonderful. However, some people enjoy having something to do. Yeah there are those who don't like their jobs, but under anarcho-capitalism that'll be almost eradicated. People will do what they do best because that is what the system requires of them to be competitive.

Call it my own prejudices, but I've always found socialism a very lazy philosophy - in the most literal sense. I personally can't stand the layabout ideal, and would find a society built on unemployment and decadence repugnant.

"Capitalism relies on scarcity and competition, and is much more natural than socialism in regards to resources (Darwin, anyone?)."
n nature there is a lot of competition, but the ones that are best have a free cooperation. Industrialization improved the output that much so we make now all things in abundance. There is enough food, enough stuff to supply all and enough knowledge. What we need is to share these things so we stop poverty.
That said obesity is the thing that is killing many in the west...
For me it seems the article tries to reach a better world.

You knew Churchill? Wow you are old.




😉

we should start building eSecret society here to take over the rl world muahaha

Yeaaaaah, using machines to cultivate millions of acres of land.

And these millions of acres of land will be where exactly? Riiight, you have to chop even more trees for farmland and after a few years the land is wasted. Yay, let's all have food for a few years and after this we are all going to die because there is no more land anymore 😃 Weeeh, nice future.

vertical farming 😃

space exploration. 😛 There are already proposals to mine in space for resources as well, leaving more room for land cultivation on earth. Of course, this is all one hypothetical "just for fun" scenario. If I had the power to change everything, I could easily make it work. Most large stores, homes, and other buildings would be torn down and replaced with land for resources, such as farmland.

[removed]

Nothing new. Mason and neo-malthusian stuff...

never said it was new. I'm not ashamed to be a neurotic, pessimistic malthusian. 😛

Mome, if i ruled the world i would take Finway's mome from Finway!

v

simple, all i would do is make it fair.

i have not read the entire article only snippets. replace the entire labour workforce that is already happening at a massive scale. robots is a thing of the present. [buzz whirr shhh] not the future. Labour is in many countries very cheap though. So your cost of the robot will always have to be far less than that of the human counterpart.

Interesting read, even if improperly categorized as the article seems "entertainment" oriented given the lack of eRepublik specific content...I suspect most would conclude your conceptualization is either a century too early, or a century too late.

Looking forward to additional articles.

very voted... most enjoyed.
I agree with several points, but not all. I'll give it some thought and writing.
Kool idea dear!

Voted. But I am not a stoner.

The link for submitting your ideas doesn't work? Says it's malicious.

I'm a progressive liberal with marxist leanings tempered by a keen understanding of modern economics and industry, and an appreciation for the efficiency of market economics.

I enjoyed reading your article Raven, but I'm always struck by the lack of practical ideas, that we can start to put into effect now, even going back to the writings of Marx. The criticisms of the system we have now are often brilliant, and yet our current system, for all the injustice, violence, and basic economic failure, is still the only reason that more people than ever are currently living better lives than ever before.

Obviously, suddenly becoming the ruler of the world is a hypothetical that assumes quite a bit... but global socio-economic politics is very unstable... and when we're talking about a global plan that would take about 100 years to implement amongst what would probably be well over 10 billion people of drastically different cultures and situations.... i have enough fun already with my various flavours of daily existential and identity crisis.

"...yet our current system, for all the injustice, violence, and basic economic failure, is still the only reason that more people than ever are currently living better lives than ever before." - We have nothing else to compare it to unless you have been to an alternate reality where the people there tried it a different way?

You indicate you are struck by the lack of practical ideas and yet you put forward one of the most facile pro-capitalist/pro status quo arguments there is. To me this indicates a lack of thought/original thinking. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on an idea prevalent in the so-called intelligentsia in our society today, that we can only think along certain set lines.

The vast majority of people on this planet are already making unrealistically high levels of sacrifice (referring back to a comment made by Kaminarinote) to keep us (the wealthy) in the 1st world in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Tweaking the same system very slightly will not get us out of the mess we are in. Something a little more radical is required. Some thinking and Ideas (I hate to use this phrase) a little outside of the box are required.

I am not a stoner. I am currently employed and have had a job for the vast majority of my working life.

Sorry if this came across as an attack on Ian. It was not meant to be. I could just as easily put it in after a comment by Kam or just as my own personal comment.

Crosseye, we have a couple thousand years of recorded history to compare it to. Obviously that comparison isn't an argument for the status quo since only in less than a century have we had the technology to make anything significantly different viable... all I was trying to say, is that despite all the failings of the system we have, this system has certainly done more good than harm in terms of the global standard of living and global freedom and justice, in historical terms. I have no doubt there's a drastically superior way... I agree with the criticisms of the current system... I simply disagree with the assessment that what we have now is some sort of universal living Hell...

I reject the dichotomy of capitalism and communism/socialism as an outdated, close-minded way of thinking. A way of thinking designed for people who can't think for themselves. The two aren't even diametrically opposed if you fully understand the scope of economics.

I'm surprised at your response tbh, I'm one of the most left-wing people I know.

That said, my model would start with some basics:

1) Procure a source of renewable and relatively clean agro-fuel. As long as we control our use of such fuel, the Earth is actually amazing at rebalancing and cleaning itself. We can grow and produce the fuel rather than depending on wasteful inefficient batteries or limited dirty supplies of fossil fuel. I also think that Nuclear and Hydro are viable options for powering our cities and static infrastructure, though they do have huge environmental impacts... however they are relatively clean, and Nuclear is actually safe if it isn't horrifically neglected. Wind and solar are inefficient, unreliable, and incapable of meeting our global energy demands. In some areas they may be useful to supplement our hard supply, but not as our bread and butter. Fuel is favoured over batteries (electric cars) because of how much energy is lost in transit, versus how efficient fuel is at storing energy.

2) Move global cities toward pedestrian travel rather than cars. Residential, Commercial, and Industrial districts can be connected by clean, safe, efficient rails... even between cities themselves. The new modern cities could be holistically designed to be efficient, attractive, and social; rather than what we have now, which is traffic jams, highways, huge parking lots and department stores. You shouldn't need a car to buy your essentials or get to a decent job.

3) A global constitutional republic, creating and protecting rights for all human beings, not for corporations, and not based on your genitals, ideas, skin colour, or sexuality. Freedom of and from religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly. The right to a fair trial, and to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

4) Improve global information and technology infrastructure so we can move toward some kind of digitally trackable economy... because if we have global government that is going to be huge problem that I don't even know where to begin with. But I think that starting with the infrastructure to digitally track goods, transactions, and trade is essential for coming up with a working model without broken and outdated ideology getting involved. Right now our models of economics are pretty much universally incomplete because we don't have a means of objectively evaluating value or wealth... let alone tracking it.

I will say that distribution of wealth is a primary issue... "free markets" can be great for the logistics of giant global economies, where "government" is just incapable of making those kinds of logistical management decisions... but those markets wont work either way if you don't distribute the wealth in a way that maximizes your base of competition. If only the 1% who are benefactors of dynastic wealth are privileged to compete, that's 99% less competition, which undermines the basics of an efficient market.

There are areas though where I have a preference toward centralization. Housing, Infrastructure, Electronics, Computing, Automotives, etc are areas that I would rather see centralization. For a lot of those you still want some kind of market/competitive motive for R&D and quality incentives... but its just so wasteful to turn those toward consumerism, there's got to be a better way.

5) Can't go on, but you get the idea. There could be hundreds of items of this list of practical goals or ideas. That said, practical doesn't mean easy or perfect... it just means loosely conceivable.

I do agree with many of your points. But at the end of the day, nothing beats the efficiency, though lifelessness, of machinery. My implementations derive from a more philosophical outlook on a future I feel we're headed for at the current rate. I could start small, but if I were ruled the world (as we mentioned, an idea that's just hypothetical/for fun) I don't think I could start too small if given only 100 years.

In all honesty I'd probably make Stalin look like Santa.

You see moving towards better transportation, and I like your mentioned ideas as a small step. But I see in the end total electronic transportation, with the selection of where to go, and absolutely nothing left to do from there. No accidents, no insurance, no car payments, no free will during transit, nothing. Is it boring? Yes. Is it maximally efficient and sustainable? Yes.

Do you think that through the advancement of technology, machinery has the potential of sustaining human life? If you believe so, then all of my ideas are conceivable. I do not believe 100 years is realistic. This was all hypothetical and for fun. 😛 Had I listed the first steps, it'have been a dull article for most.

We're at the point where businesses wanting to save a few bucks on labour are unintentionally laying down the foundation for this technology-sustained civilization. The market served its purpose by speeding up the advancement of technology and knowledge of science even, up to this point, through competition. But do you think there will be a need for the market if all life is entirely sustained by machinery?

I do believe that had population control been implemented sooner, that the free market would've proved sustainable. But the human flaw of greed is what leads competition to be unsustainable, mass consumption of resources, even more mass population growth. Planning ahead is rare. Competition in the now, and sustainability for the future have not been proven as synonymous.

@Raven, I get where you'd coming from - I guess I just find it more entertaining to think about the nearer future than extrapolating to a utopian ideal right away.

Well your future of robotics and a network of self maintaining robots is conceivable for many industries in a relatively short time... I suppose the major hurdle is artificial intelligence... Humans aren't even perfect at maintaining and controlling industry - so placing it in the hands of machines entirely would require a lot of advances.

I'm skeptical of the ability of machinery to completely take over for humans - but I wont say it's impossible. I say I'm skeptical because I think there may be certain caps on how far we can advance... but I suppose people have been getting proved wrong about things like that for hundreds of years already. I do think that there will always be demand for the market... there has never been "need" for it. Humanities greatest downfall is our infinite demand for goods and services, in the face of limited resources. Even if we live a life of luxury, someone will always want more and more... and knowing humans, some of them will be able to get it. Ofc we could drug everyone, or paralyze them into floating chairs so that they become little more than puppets with a pulse, forced to "enjoy" our new utopian society.

As for population... it's a bit of a paradox. The success of our system has lead to the "overpopulation" of certain areas, through advancements in medicine, agriculture, and new concepts like international aid and welfare. When birthrates were low because of poor medicine, there was less of an issue for example. Overall though I don't think the earth is overpopulated - just over privileged.

But look at the "silver lining"... once global warming kicks in, the worst areas will be flooded, as it happens... meanwhile china and parts north america are projected by some to benefit environmentally from climates more suitable for mass agriculture.

Great article. Very enjoyable read. I liked the back and forth discussions coming from the article too.

"In all honesty I'd probably make Stalin look like Santa."

My new favorite quote.