Resource Based Economy

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by data2.0, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. data2.0 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    I was not sure where to place this thread as it is an economic theory but it is one that requires a completely new culture and way of life so I threw it in the generally philosophy. I've been arguing with some people about why a resource based economy wouldn't work and mostly they've been coming back with the responses that I haven't done enough research on it to understand it and that is why I am wrong. I don't say that to be diminutive to them, though I really do, I haven't presented the best arguments myself. I thought I would bring this here and others could discuss in a better environment than I have been in. I was discussing it on facebook with a lot of people who are part of the zeitgeist movement and what not. I'll link the group I guess, it is an open group so you should be able to see the "discussion". Also I'm trying to get this forum to do my work for me, it is painful to watch so many videos like that, a good many of them are a bit too conspiracy theorist for my liking. If I wasn't clear they are for it and I'm against it. We should probably move past the point that you would never get the amount of people you need to agree with it. Whatever, go at it and I shall input my opinion when appropriate which is not really now.


    http://www.facebook.com/groups/2725...ent_id=294465153992838&notif_t=group_activity



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphWsnhZ4Ag
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs&feature=fvwrel

    This one is just to express an opposing viewpoint.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Why don't you just tell us what you mean by a "resource-based economy"? I'll take your word for it that you passed sixth-grade English and know how to write a coherent, accurate report on something. That would be much kinder than expecting everyone to go back to the same source materials you used--and you know very few of us have the time to do that.

    But having minored in economics, I'll start the questioning by asking how you define the word "resource." In the Paleolithic Era the only resources were the plants and animals that were used for food, and to a lesser extent for making clothes and tools (fibers, skins, horns, etc.), as well as rocks that could be knapped into blades.

    In the Neolithic Era we had a second-order economy, in which some people used the basic natural resources to create man-made resources such as clothing, houses, tools, furniture, utensils, and a few non-necessities such as art and musical instruments.

    The Bronze Age brought the discovery of a new type of natural resource: ore. We quickly learned how to smelt alloys (bronze = copper + tin) and later in the Iron Age to smelt pure iron (which requires an almost unbelievably hot fire).

    Eventually labor had to be regarded as a resource, especially once the musclepower of animals became as large a part of the economy as human muscles. Water too had to be classified that way. Coal supplanted wood and peat as fuel, and the Industrial Revolution created yet more layers of resources: raw materials, components, machine tools, vehicles, ultimately factories themselves as well as large shops and "virtual stores" such as the Sears Roebuck catalog.

    The Electronic Revolution takes this a step further. Information is now obviously a resource, and it has the utterly unique property of being able to be reproduced at virtually no cost.

    This will set the "soft science" of economics on its head. The concept of scarcity will no longer be a driving force. The basic necessities of life can be provided for a trivial amount of investment--at least up to a world population of ten billion, which is as high as it will go before it begins to shrink by the end of this century. Whereas the key resource, information, is not subject to the traditional types of limits with which we are familiar. (The scarcity of food in the Third World is a red herring. That is a political problem, not an economic one. We ship them boatloads of food and their despotic leaders hijack it and sell it on the black market in order to buy more SUVs, hookers, champagne and guns.)

    The information revolution is also making the artifact of the corporation almost obsolete, as the capital-intensive projects of the 19th century give way to enterprises that people can finance with nothing more than their life savings. (My friend's son's software house in Estonia, for example.)

    It's interesting but probably pointless to try to imagine the economic model of the next century. It will look as different from ours as ours does from the food-based manor-and-yeoman organization of medieval Europe.

    There was a time when 99% of the earth's population were doomed to "careers" in the food production "industry." Today most of us work sitting down, reading and writing words--a skill most of those 99% didn't even have! It's time to be humble and admit that we can't see the future any better than they could.

    A "resource-based" economy? Can you name six of the most important resources of the 23rd century?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Reminder: your great-great-great-grandparents could not have done that for our century.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. data2.0 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    Geez, expecting me to do work is a little much. So anyways.

    A resource based economy is Jacque Fresco's socio-economic theory and planned restructuring of the planet and civilization. It involves all services and products being free to everyone by using technology to balance the resources with the demand of the population. The first step is to survey all the planet, its resources, its people, and environment. To make this system work the entire planet would have to be united. There is no currency or monetary system of any kind. Products are no longer designed to break after a short time forcing you to replace it. Everything is streamlined and mass produced. Cities would be redesigned to merge with the environment and at the center of every city is where things such as education, health care, food, products, would be available. A city would have a large amount of trees, streams, ponds, and plant life. Houses would be dispersed throughout this shrubbery so that they provide privacy. Further out from the center of the city would be apartment complexes for those who wish to live in an "all in one" community. On the outskirts would be a hydroponics ring where a large amount of the food will be grown. Concentration of resources would be affective in making global constructs to allow for quick transport of goods and people around the world.

    Look, I'm not the best at explaining something I don't believe is plausible and I'm not certain I've ever had a decent English class. So its not really about the resources, its about the "application of the scientific method in the world".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AaronB Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    I got into the technology field with the belief that as technology improved, so would efficiency leading to less effort required to accomplish greater levels of productivity. Over the past 50 years its amazing the boost in technology we've experienced, but I don't see any evidence of a decrease in the amount of human effort to keep things running.

    It seems rather than decreasing the amount of effort required, an increase in efficiency is leading to unemployment. There is a desperate need to find some form of "work" for people to do just to be "paid". If there was an amazing scientific breakthrough that immediately resulted in all products requiring half the amount of effort to produce, shouldn't that be considered a wonderful thing? Today we'd call it 50% unemployment.

    Our economic system fights technology because in order to work smoothly there must be a constant struggle. Great leeps in technology seem to inadvertently contribute to unemployment. I've heard some companies buying patents for new technologies to prevent the new technology from replacing the old. I like the idea of an economy where self sabotage no longer made cents.
     

Share This Page