Difference between revisions of "Talk:RBEM/Strategies for integration with the monetary market"
(Blanked the page) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | About the article so far: | ||
| + | The starting point of the RBE train of thought is A. Abundance and B. Technology. All ideas in this article should be ignored as they don't provide good starting points. We should start with B. Technology. By implementing technology in the most appropriate manner we can ideally provide decent basic living standards and full or almost full time leisure. Those are the things a first settlement can provide. Step two could then be attracting (technical) know how. The atmosphere and living conditions, combined with the leisure time, should be such that the settlement can attract skilled people, who take the project to the next level. All the while the system should remain open to the monetary system, and decision should be make on a per case basis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Extra information, copied from 'agreements': | ||
| + | |||
| + | If the person in charge of the money thinks A is the best decision, and the majority of the participants think B is the best decision, the person in charge of the money should choose A. If he didn't he would knowingly make a bad decision, with the benefit of not setting a precedent for future power abuse. These kinds of abusive situations only arise when there is scarcity. Projecting an aura of consistency or ethical reliability shouldn't be a concern. What matters is taking rational decisions. Consciously making bad decisions in order to protect ones sense of integrity is a form of martyrdom we should refrain from. | ||
| + | The same goes for whether to use money. If for example there is an overcapacity in energy production it may very well make sense to sell the surplus. This is just a rational choice, as letting the energy (or money) go to waste just doesn't make sense. The goal of the project is to get to a RBE, not to be one right away, and the consistency is in the belief of the participants in the RBE theory behind it. Proving to the outside world that we are consistent should not stand in the way of making rational decisions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Extra point: | ||
| + | |||
| + | I find it likely that the first settlers will be more humanistically oriented (or alpha) and that the (more than) necessary techies (or beta's) will be joining later (likely a small group). Therefore I think it's smart to save part of the money for when these people arrive. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Wouter.drucker|wouter.drucker]] ([[User talk:Wouter.drucker|talk]]) 15:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:27, 24 February 2013
About the article so far:
The starting point of the RBE train of thought is A. Abundance and B. Technology. All ideas in this article should be ignored as they don't provide good starting points. We should start with B. Technology. By implementing technology in the most appropriate manner we can ideally provide decent basic living standards and full or almost full time leisure. Those are the things a first settlement can provide. Step two could then be attracting (technical) know how. The atmosphere and living conditions, combined with the leisure time, should be such that the settlement can attract skilled people, who take the project to the next level. All the while the system should remain open to the monetary system, and decision should be make on a per case basis.
Extra information, copied from 'agreements':
If the person in charge of the money thinks A is the best decision, and the majority of the participants think B is the best decision, the person in charge of the money should choose A. If he didn't he would knowingly make a bad decision, with the benefit of not setting a precedent for future power abuse. These kinds of abusive situations only arise when there is scarcity. Projecting an aura of consistency or ethical reliability shouldn't be a concern. What matters is taking rational decisions. Consciously making bad decisions in order to protect ones sense of integrity is a form of martyrdom we should refrain from. The same goes for whether to use money. If for example there is an overcapacity in energy production it may very well make sense to sell the surplus. This is just a rational choice, as letting the energy (or money) go to waste just doesn't make sense. The goal of the project is to get to a RBE, not to be one right away, and the consistency is in the belief of the participants in the RBE theory behind it. Proving to the outside world that we are consistent should not stand in the way of making rational decisions.
Extra point:
I find it likely that the first settlers will be more humanistically oriented (or alpha) and that the (more than) necessary techies (or beta's) will be joining later (likely a small group). Therefore I think it's smart to save part of the money for when these people arrive.
wouter.drucker (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
