Jump to content
Science Forums

How soon will a moneyless society change the way we percieve each other?


Peacemaker

Recommended Posts

Let's rewind the clock, in the hope that somesort of understanding can be reached...

 

What would your place in society be in an older world? - what do you have to provide that can be bartered with?

 

You see even in a Kibutz type of economy each member has to provide in order to be accepted as a part of that society...

 

For example if I were in a wheel chair, as little as 30 years ago I had no piont in living, I would have to rely on society to provide for me. Today though society may not even have to be all that charitable to one that is in a wheel chair. With technology that person can provide alot for the society...

I wonder if anyone is thinking of a really good example right now? -starts with David.

 

So ... because of a Free Economy David in his wheel chair can be valued in other ways. He no longer has to build coffee tables in exchange for acceptance in his community.

 

I also cited Linux in my previous post in the hope that some-one would point out that it is actually a prime example of a community approached collaboration (although with a hell of alot of prodding and pushing from the free economy to keep it alive)

 

I think what Utpopianists need to remember is that...

A. - It's been tried.

B. - It didn't work. (Kibutz's are now the holiday farms of the rich)

C. - We need "Useless job's" - not everyone can build coffee tables.

D. - Appreciate the coffee table maker, it's the person that provide a place for your latte so that you could have the time to ponder upon how you can take away another freedom from the coffee table maker.

E. - Not all of us like coffee, the table maker probably puts beer on his table that he constructed out of scraps... appreciate the fact that the alcohol is the only thing that keeps him sane while he deals with latte sipping customers, and that your hokus pokus plans for society are what helps him decide that his freedom to bear arms should be justified with the purchase of a firearm.

F. - Being a Utopianist, means that you probably already don't actually provide anything substantial for society... I am looking at the Salesmen, the Reqruiter, the Halfwit Officarian., be thankful in the fact that your society taxes the coffee table maker enough to provide for your place in society.

 

and since this is supposedly a science forum....

For the Knowledgable Creators. Be Thankful for the people that put you thier, without them you would of had to have grown your own food and be a farmer like the rest of us, and thankyou for "giving back", by designing a better plough for the farm.

 

Stop flying the hammer and sickle. and put a star on your forehead - at least then we know who you are.

 

Hippies Unit - then build a spaceship, and fly to mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have been away from this thread for quite a few months now and world events have, as I predicted, proved once again that the people who control money cannot be trusted with that task.

They get greedy and take risks and are highly paid for doing so, until it all goes pear shaped and the tax payers and the poor have to pick up the tab.

All of you, who think that a society based on money is the greatest thing since sliced bread have failed to learn the lessons of history, which are that mankind cannot be trusted to deal honestly with each other when money is involved.

What I promote is not communism, I support no hammer and sickle or red stars, because they were based on money systems and merely produced a bastardised copy of what exists in capitalist countries.

What I promote is based on cooperation and understanding for the betterment of all, not just a few.

The British media is promoting a sympathetic approach to the 'plight' of the banking fraternity currently, you know, the ones who have been taking huge salaries and bonuses for years at the expense of their customers. Apparently the difference between a financial trader and a seagull now is that a seagull can still put a deposit on a porche. I don't feel sorry for them at all. I just hope they learn a little humility from this experience.

I just pray that no more of my predictions come true before we start to see common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh

It is easy to predict a disaster. I can predict that a Cat 4 hurricane will hit Miami.

And I can gaurentee you it will happen (if you wait long enough;)).

There have been dishonest and greedy people regardless of the form of economic gain (barter, money, etc).

Greed is not about money, it is about resources. If you do away with 'money' what ever replaces it will be what greedy people covet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be specific if you will:)

How are people going to exchange for the items they need/want?

If I build clocks and need a new stove, how do I get the new stove?

 

And, as I am sure you will answer clearly and concisely I will address your question.

Specifically, some individuals will be greedy for/desire status. Which can take the form of ownership/power over land/the opposite sex/artwork/etc.

Others will simply desire what someone else has. A larger house, access to higher education, rare artwork, more or fancier clothes.

Still others might desire more free time, or more travel.

 

Now, as I said earlier, if you can do away with any desires of humanity I suppose you can do away with money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been away from this thread for quite a few months…
Welcome back to hypography, Peacemaker! Even by those who profoundly disagree with you, you’ve been missed. :beer:

 

Given your dedication to the goal of a moneyless society, I am curious if you’re familiar with the fiction and non-fiction writing of Cory Doctrow and Charles Stross, both of whom are known for extensive writing, mostly in a fictional mode, about moneyless society. I recommend them highly. Their major novels are “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” and “Accelerando” (which I mentioned 14 months ago, in this post of this thread), both of which are, of course, available in electronic form for free under a CCL, though for those ideologically opposed to such things, paper copies can be had for the usual old-fashioned money. :)

 

… now and world events have, as I predicted, proved once again that the people who control money cannot be trusted with that task.
I don’t believe any serious student has ever claimed that history, ancient through current, has ever shown that trust was ever more than provisional, for any medium of exchange, from pure communalism to barter to money. However, I don’t see that history up to the moment has done other than demonstrate that money is a very resilient medium, even in the absence of high levels of trust. In the large volumes of news and commentary about the recent bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers financial services company and bankruptcy and US Federal Reserve Bank takeover/rescue of the AIG insurance company, I’ve seen no mention whatever of eliminating money. Rather than showing defects in the idea of money, crises such as these appear to show its utility.
Greed is not about money, it is about resources.
I would take this a step further: greed is not just about resources, but about scarcity of resources. Greed for resources that are abundant is practically nonexistent.
If you do away with 'money' what ever replaces it will be what greedy people covet.
Agreed.

 

The central idea of post-scarcity economics is that some money-like means of exchange will exists as long as, but not only as long as, it is useful, and that it is only useful when the demand for essential commodities exceeds or nearly equals supplies. The term is actually an oxymoron, as by its own principles, without scarcity, there is no economy in the usual sense. According to the principles of post-scarcity, eliminating scarcity – which is in essence a technical engineering problem – eliminates the need for money, and, though great resistance may be encountered, eventually eliminates money.

 

(Apologies making repeating these point, which I have made in posts over several years, but in several years of discussing these subjects, my conclusions have changed only in detail, not in general)

 

The vision of post-scarcity proponents such as Stross, Doctorow, and me, and of Peacemaker, is that the former see human nature – including selfishness – as effectively unchangeable, but the technology of resource acquisition and delivery as effectively unlimited, while the latter see human nature as changeable, but (usually) technology as fairly limited. This is a very fundamental disagreement in worldviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a current theory, that by adopting an open mind and a moneyless society that we can end the current round of disasters we call life. That by bringing ultimate logic to the myths and fantasies that comprise religious beliefs, that we can end the schisms that separate men from their brothers and sisters and bring about the required conditions of open mindedness that are required for mankind to move into the next stage of our evolution, to a peaceful, loving species, at one with our environment.

If you fully understand and appreciate to what I am refering, I would be most interested to hear your views. :naughty:

 

This is a description of communism. It doesn't work as history has repeatedly shown us. Humans instinctualy seek to gain the most while expending the least energy to get it. That will not change, and it will always bring down a communist system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be specific Z, what will people be greedy for in a moneyless society where everyone has an equal share of the earth's resources?

 

Those are two very distinct statements - that the society will be moneyless and that everybody will have an equal share of the earth's resources.

 

On the second part, I have to say that I hope it will never happen. People are not all congruent. I eat twice as much as my sister, would your idea of an "equal share" take that into account, or do I go hungry, or my sister overeat?

 

I live in a rural area, where I have to drive a lot to get around (there is little to no useful public transportation). Would I have to work with just as much fuel as somebody who lives in a bustling city and does not need as much?

 

Does a person living in Texas get air conditioning? What about the people in Alaska, do they get heating fuel? Different people have different needs, so you cannot and should not try to make everybody have an 'equal share'.

 

 

"Ah!", you say, "But equal doesn't need to be the same!" And you're correct, but without a defined system of valuation, who is to say that the price of air conditioning is the same as the price of heating fuel? And with a defined system of valuation, you have money.

 

As far as I can tell, you can either have an equal society (which doesn't really work well), or a moneyless society (which cannot really function) but you cannot have both on a large scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Z

(So many questions - so little time. )

'How are people going to exchange for the items they need/want?

If I build clocks and need a new stove, how do I get the new stove?

(People will continue making clocks and stoves, and everything else we currently produce. There is no reason for us to stop making anything that is useful to mankind. And all you have to do is find yourself a job that you want to do and contribute to the daily task. Whatever it may be.)

Specifically, some individuals will be greedy for/desire status. Which can take the form of ownership/power over land/the opposite sex/artwork/etc.

(One of the cardinal requirements for this is that there is absolutely no ownership of anything, at all on this planet. If you need a lawn mower, you go and get one from the store. Why would you want 2? The same goes for everything else. Sex is a different issue which I won't go into here, but I have the perfect solution for that too. Most rare artwork is currently kept locked away in bank vaults and in private collections. Why not make these collections public and let us all take advantage of seeing, and being inspired by them. It is for the current owners to make that decision though. I wouldn't take anything from anybody. What I expect to happen is an evolution in mankind away from materialism to a happier and more sharing lifestyle. Some people may wish to retain their posessions and not share them with the community. That is their decision. I don't expect that state of mind to last long after it happens. People will think more rationally about what is REALLY important in life.)

Now, as I said earlier, if you can do away with any desires of humanity I suppose you can do away with money.

(I believe the polar opposite will be the case Z ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi CraigD,

 

Welcome back to hypography, Peacemaker! Even by those who profoundly disagree with you, you’ve been missed.

 

(Thanks for that, I'm genuinely touched. Best wishes to us all!...and thanks for the reading list. When I have a little more time on my hands I will peruse these tomes and let you know my feelings about the accuracy of them.)

 

I’ve seen no mention whatever of eliminating money. Rather than showing defects in the idea of money, crises such as these appear to show its utility.

 

(I agree. Money is the highest and most efficient form of barter we have yet invented, but it is imperfect and wide open to abuse.)

 

I would take this a step further: greed is not just about resources, but about scarcity of resources. Greed for resources that are abundant is practically nonexistent.

 

(Alas! we differ. Food is not in short supply in the western world, yet we don't share our bounty with the rest of the world because it would affect prices. Money and property = power. Have you seen the situation in Ethiopia? Where the government is deliberately withholding food aid from a large area of the country in order to starve millions of people to death, because those people don't necessarily agree with the politics of that government? The food aid is going directly to the Ethiopian Military. Not actual scarcity, just manufactured scarcity for political purposes.)

 

The vision of post-scarcity proponents such as Stross, Doctorow, and me, and of Peacemaker, is that the former see human nature – including selfishness – as effectively unchangeable, but the technology of resource acquisition and delivery as effectively unlimited, while the latter see human nature as changeable, but (usually) technology as fairly limited. This is a very fundamental disagreement in worldviews.

 

(If you check back on the posts Craig, I have given the examples of changing human attitudes to child smacking, homosexuality and AIDS as just a few areas where human nature has been fundamentally changed by public opinion over a very short period of human time. Also, I don't see technology as being limited at all. I have stated previously that once we free ourselves of the mental shackles of budgets and other financial restrictions we can produce whatever we want, and as much of it as we need within the limitations of the availability of the raw materials.

 

That means that scientists and inventors don't have to wait for years for funding to carry out important research. They just request the equipment and personnel they require and get on with it. I believe that THAT will get technology moving along at a much quicker pace than it is currently. Thanks for your continued questing Craig. I know we'll cross swords again in the future, but it's never personal. Sorry these answers are brief, but it's late and I am trying to get through as much as possible quickly. Best regards to you and yours. and to Z and his!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a description of communism. It doesn't work as history has repeatedly shown us. Humans instinctualy seek to gain the most while expending the least energy to get it. That will not change, and it will always bring down a communist system.

 

(I havn't communicated with you before Nitack, thanks for your interest. If you check page 14 of this thread you will see that I have covered this. The 'communism' that has been practiced so disasterously by China, Russia and others is in fact a bastardised form of capitalism, and as such was doomed to failure from the outset.

 

I don't mean to sound as if I am trying to teach my granny to suck eggs, but would you do me a favour and read the full thread, and any others I have contributed to, as I am sure you will find the answers to many of the questions you are asking yourself about this system in there somewhere.

 

It is not an easy system to comprehend as we have been taught from birth that the only way for humans to exist on this planet is to use money as a major means of measuring a man's worth to society, and his place in it. It takes a very open mind indeed to even contemplate a philosophy which relies solely on trust, love and teamwork, as a species, in order to move to a higher plane of life, right here, right now.

 

I am not a stupid man, and none of the people I know would consider me so. I am also not a crank, or a liar. So please take the time to understand what I am talking about and try to ignore what you think every one else might do in these circumstances. Many people think it is a great idea and that THEY would love to do it, but they have no faith in the majority of mankind to do the right thing under the terms of such a system. Let me worry about that. I just want, right now, to convince YOU that it is the best and fairest possible system for all of mankind to flourish on this planet

 

Best regards to you and yours,

Peacemaker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are two very distinct statements - that the society will be moneyless and that everybody will have an equal share of the earth's resources.

 

On the second part, I have to say that I hope it will never happen. People are not all congruent. I eat twice as much as my sister, would your idea of an "equal share" take that into account, or do I go hungry, or my sister overeat?

 

I live in a rural area, where I have to drive a lot to get around (there is little to no useful public transportation). Would I have to work with just as much fuel as somebody who lives in a bustling city and does not need as much?

 

Does a person living in Texas get air conditioning? What about the people in Alaska, do they get heating fuel? Different people have different needs, so you cannot and should not try to make everybody have an 'equal share'.

 

 

"Ah!", you say, "But equal doesn't need to be the same!" And you're correct, but without a defined system of valuation, who is to say that the price of air conditioning is the same as the price of heating fuel? And with a defined system of valuation, you have money.

 

As far as I can tell, you can either have an equal society (which doesn't really work well), or a moneyless society (which cannot really function) but you cannot have both on a large scale.

 

Hi PGRMDAVE,

 

The answer I have given above is largely also what I would say to you. But more specifically, on your question of the equality of shares, I have stated, many times in this thread and in the document I have written that each human will take his share of everyting we have, ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.

 

What I am proposing is not that we all get 100 grains of rice a day and a chicken wing. I am saying is that under the philosophy I propose, every human being on this planet will go to a warm, comfortable bed each night with a belly full of goodness. We will ALL have access to the best accomodation, healthcare, recreational facilities, transport and whatever else we need, because all we have to do is work together and build it, grow it or invent it, without anyone owning any of it personally. So there are no value comparisons to be made. Just a fair and equitable addressing of universal supply and demand for our species... And if someone takes more than their fair share, what are they going to do with it? Carry it around for the rest of their lives? There would be NO POINT in taking more than we need under the terms of such a system. But there would be every reason to work, and thereby contribute. Because the rewards, in the betterment of our lifestyle will be phenomenal.

 

As I have stated above, although it is a very simple system, it is a REALLY difficult concept to take on board, because we expect the rest of humanity to sit back and let the more industrious get on with it. However, I predict that within 1 month of this occurring, to even THINK of not participating will be anathema to the vast majority of our species. The benefits will be obvious from very soon after we adopt this way of living (within minutes). I have written about the potential benefits before. Please read them and decide whether what I speak of will be better for you and your offspring than the potential 'Robocop' scenario which faces us under capitalism. I hope to speak to you soon.

Best regards to all,

Peacemaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that system is that there becomes no incentive to have anything but the best things possible. Why eat grains every day when I could have meat every meal? (which, of course, is not sustainable in the long term, or even the short term) Why drive a kia when I could be driving a sleek, shiny sportscar? (when everybody in the world, all 6 billion+ of us, want sports cars, who is going to be able to manufacture them all quickly enough?) Why would I work as a janitor when I could get a job doing something I love? (think of all the dirty jobs...filthy jobs...the ones that people don't like to do - coal miner, sanitation worker, construction work...without financial incentive, why work at these jobs?).

 

If there was no scarcity of anything, then perhaps we could have your system. In fact, I will say that if we could have any given system in which there was no scarcity, human nature would tend toward your system. But there is scarcity of any given good. There might be enough food, but there's not enough wheat. There might be enough televisions, but there aren't enough 72" plasma TVs. There might be enough minerals, but not enough gold, or iron, or aluminum. Until there is enough of everything there is still scarcity. Potable water is soon going to become a scarce good, and if we develop some way to desalinate water it will require energy, and so far the best sources of energy that we have are:

 

Fossil fuels - scarce in and of themselves

Nuclear energy - produces waste which has to be disposed of, which creates a scarcity of uncontaminated land

Solar/wind - not available everywhere and takes up an incredible amount of land, making land much more scarce.

Biofuels - arable land is not infinite, and any land that is dedicated to fuels is not dedicated to food, which will have to be in overabundance to deal with the feeding of all 6 billion of us (which would require an inordinate amount of transportation, btw).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still haven't read this thread to understand rather than to criticise have you prgmdave? I have given answers to this over and over again.

 

OK, here we go again. Do you think it would be in the best interests of a modern mankind for all of us to drive sports cars? Don't you think it would be better and more materially and economically effective for us to build superb mass transport systems powered by cheap energy?

 

Does it occur to you that there would be far fewer accidents if humans weren't in charge of individual motor vehicles? I have suggested a possible change to the way we use cars after we evolve, in the original document I wrote (and which is available on page 6 of this thread).

 

Similarly, with the food situation. Not everyone on this planet eats meat. But there is no reason we wouldn't be able to produce as much meat as we need, and more, to store if there are any leaner times in the future. We will have the whole world as our larder, with the ability to produce whatever we need in the best climate and under the best conditions to ensure no shortages. This will obviously not happen overnight, but we are currently producing enough food to feed 6 billion people. We must be, because there are that many of our species alive on our planet currently, and if we shared the currently available produce around better, no one would starve.

 

The dirty jobs, (also previously covered) are being done now. for a much poorer lifestyle that the one I offer. Maybe doing the dirty jobs should be a rite of passage for our youth, making them more aware of how the planet works. Or maybe we could just build and design better equipment to do the dirty jobs for us? Mankind will come up with the best solutions once this system is in place. All I can offer is ideas which make people think laterally instead of literally. We have to start thinking about our future and how to get around, and minimise potential problems, instead of dwelling on them and getting bogged down in minutea.

 

 

(Fossil fuels - scarce in and of themselves.) Use atomic energy until other sources are available.

(Nuclear energy - produces waste which has to be disposed of, which creates a scarcity of uncontaminated land.) Use our space know how to send nuclear waste to the sun!

 

(Solar/wind - not available everywhere and takes up an incredible amount of land, making land much more scarce.) We have the whole planet!

 

(Biofuels - arable land is not infinite, and any land that is dedicated to fuels is not dedicated to food, which will have to be in overabundance to deal with the feeding of all 6 billion of us (which would require an inordinate amount of transportation, btw).) We have the technology and knowhow to turn what are now useless areas of our planet into lush pastures and forests and wind turbine farms. Think about the last time you flew anywhere. Do you remember taking off from a city and then travelling for hours over mostly empty countryside? Try flying over Russia, or Africa, or even Europe, and see how much empty, available land you can see. and then multiply that by Australia, South America, Canada Etc Etc. Insects have at least 10 times more biomass on this planet than we do, and they seem to be doing OK. Instead of problems, try to think about solutions and you will come to appreciate this philosophy much more readily.

 

Sorry if I come across a bit crotchety. Your questions are valid, its just that everyone comes up with the same questions and objections, and then don't listen to the answers. They just come up with more questions of a similar type.

 

What I REALLY need to do is get the world's attention for about 4 hours and then explain it to everyone, so that the people who immediately understand what I'm talking about can explain what I'm talking about to those who don't understand.

 

Wouldn't THAT be nice?

Best regards, Peacemaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I REALLY need to do is get the world's attention for about 4 hours and then explain it to everyone, so that the people who immediately understand what I'm talking about can explain what I'm talking about to those who don't understand.

No, its simply that your "answers" are content-free. You only talk about "what should happen," and whenever you're asked "how do we get there" you simply say, "if people would just listen then they'd want to," just as you did here. Through many dozens of posts above posing reasons why this statement is simply not true, you have continually avoided responding directly to the issues, indicated that you either don't have a response or wish to make the questions go away.

 

Worse, in many of your responses you have attacked people by saying that they are against the *goals* that you propose rather than what is really the case which is that you describe no obvious method for achieving those goals other than "people will obviously want to" and "that's a detail that people smarter than me will figure out," you get people angry for misrepresenting their objections.

 

Honest, people do not hate you just because you are beautiful. You are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the notion that the only reason that people won't go along with your "brilliant" plan because they are petty and stupid. It's therefore not surprising that you get a negative reaction.

 

In the Buddhist religion, a state of pleasurable annihilation awarded to the wise, particularly to those wise enough to understand it, :)

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still haven't read this thread to understand rather than to criticise have you prgmdave? I have given answers to this over and over again.

 

Honestly, no, I haven't. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination to do so. If you have answered these questions previously, could you give me a post number for some of them? (I don't have a page 6 of this thread, we probably have our settings different as to how many posts / page).

 

OK, here we go again. Do you think it would be in the best interests of a modern mankind for all of us to drive sports cars? Don't you think it would be better and more materially and economically effective for us to build superb mass transport systems powered by cheap energy?

 

People don't typically want to do what's in the best interest of mankind, but what's in their immediate best interest. Ideally, we wouldn't, but it is a simple fact of human nature that a given percentage of people will defect rather than cooperate.

 

Similarly, with the food situation. Not everyone on this planet eats meat. But there is no reason we wouldn't be able to produce as much meat as we need, and more, to store if there are any leaner times in the future. We will have the whole world as our larder, with the ability to produce whatever we need in the best climate and under the best conditions to ensure no shortages. This will obviously not happen overnight, but we are currently producing enough food to feed 6 billion people. We must be, because there are that many of our species alive on our planet currently, and if we shared the currently available produce around better, no one would starve.

This is an interesting thought. Given that we are on a science site, I recommend that both of us find sources and see if this is true - that there really is enough food, transportation fuel, and arable land for six billion people.

 

We have to start thinking about our future and how to get around, and minimize potential problems, instead of dwelling on them and getting bogged down in minutia.

 

The devil is in the details. The minutia are incredibly important, as they are what actually get implemented. Having a vision of a grand transportation system for NYC is great. Picturing how you're going to put commuter rail down over the roads, without disturbing the wiring and piping underneath, and without having to shut down the city for an inordinate amount of time is when it becomes difficult.

 

1 - Have an overarching view of an ideal world.

2 - ???

3 - Profit!

 

 

(Fossil fuels - scarce in and of themselves.) Use atomic energy until other sources are available.

(Nuclear energy - produces waste which has to be disposed of, which creates a scarcity of uncontaminated land.) Use our space know how to send nuclear waste to the sun!

 

I used to be a big proponent of this, and I didn't understand why we didn't do it until I asked one of my professors and he pointed out that we've had at least one space vehicle explode on liftoff. Are you really willing to take the risk that a vehicle with a nuclear waste payload could explode, spreading the waste throughout the world? It would only take 1 mistake for it to be the biggest and costliest mistake that humans have ever made.

 

(Solar/wind - not available everywhere and takes up an incredible amount of land, making land much more scarce.) We have the whole planet!

 

We don't have the whole planet, that's a gross misstatement. We have all the habitable planet (i.e. not extremely hilly areas, nor areas that are too dry or cold or hot, nor areas that are needed wetlands, or grasslands) minus the parts that we use for other things (places to live, work, grow food, play, places set aside for wildlife preserves).

 

We have the technology and know how to turn what are now useless areas of our planet into lush pastures and forests and wind turbine farms.

 

Really? Could you link some information for me, so that I could read about it on my own? What are these "useless" areas, and what is this "technology and know how"? I'm not doubting you, I simply feel at a disadvantage, having not studied these things.

 

Think about the last time you flew anywhere. Do you remember taking off from a city and then travelling for hours over mostly empty countryside?

Sorry, I live in NJ - no empty land here :sherlock:

 

Try flying over Russia, or Africa, or even Europe, and see how much empty, available land you can see. and then multiply that by Australia, South America, Canada Etc Etc.

As far as I'm aware, much of the United State's land along the coasts is either used or protected, and I'd assume that held true even for much of middle america. Much of canada is permafrost (though global warming is fixing that!) and South America doesn't have the infrastructure yet to be able to use much of its land as effectively as Europe or the US.

 

Instead of problems, try to think about solutions and you will come to appreciate this philosophy much more readily.

 

Without problems, there can be no solutions. I often try to come up with all the problems inherent in a system - if it is your system that you are proposing, then it is not up to me to try to fix it.

 

Sorry if I come across a bit crotchety. Your questions are valid, its just that everyone comes up with the same questions and objections, and then don't listen to the answers. They just come up with more questions of a similar type.

 

The problem is that you haven't addressed any of my questions with anything specific. You have a lot of grand ideas, and some of them sound great, but without specifics, without even a hint of a blueprint, it's just a castle in the sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...