Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 02, 2011, 12:02:45 PM

Quote from: jtimon on July 01, 2011, 02:17:26 PM

And again SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVIDES VALUES, nor a direction to go, nor a meaning of life.

I agree.

As I stated before, you decide the desired outcome (with your values), then you reach it using the scientific method.

Science is the method, the tool, the technology that allows you to reach your goal in the most efficient manner.

Exactly.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Well, then you have to define formally "well being".

Without loosing us into a circular semantic argument: a state characterized by physical and mental health, happiness, and prosperity.

Physical health is relatively easy to define. Defining mental health is more dangerous. Defining objectively happiness and prosperity is impossible.
You can't optimize happiness because is relative.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

That's why I think sustainability is not compatible with people having free access to what they want.

Free access to what they need, and that can be studies and evaluated scientifically.

As for what they want, it goes back to culture and values. That's really the starting point, culture, education and values.

Ok. I like beer but I don't need it to survive. The RBE won't give me beer because it's not necessary for my health (although it is for my happiness) so I will get it in the free market.
Is my education/culture inferior because I like beer? Who say so?
Also what about arts?
If a reincarnation of Jim Morrison appears, will he gets the Watts he deserve?
Should we just want what we need?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Also I don't like capitalism, just free market. Gesell can explain you in depth how to end with capitalism without eliminating free market.

I'll look into it, the two things seem to go hand in hand.

That's what I deny, that capitalism and free market go hand in hand.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

There's many factors that lead to inequality, you can't blame the free market and pretend that is obvious.

The competitive structure and the complete disregard for human life leads to inequality, that's a fact.

The goal of a profit based society is to make money, not to maximise the well being of people.

Read any book on the subject, or report from corporation, or attend their meetings. The bottom line is always profit.

That is enough to prove that it's wrong.

Corporations may seek just monetary profits, but our society is not just for monetary profit. When a self-sufficient permaculture farmer grows his own food, he makes it in a sustainable way and for his own profit, but not for monetary profit.
You seem to demonize profit.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Big companies are often "powered" by states, they also use coercion (coercion is not free trade).

No, states are coerced by corporations into doing what they want. Read "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins.

States are coerced by corporations and then states coerce any other corporation/individual that tries to compete. What I claim is that private property and free market is not enough for monopolies to appear. Coercion is needed.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

There's no authorities or there's no producers in a RBE?

No authorities, or at least not in the way you think about authorities.

Well, Hawking is a scientific authority, don't know how you're so sure how I think about authorities.
Anyway, now that we have clear that I see producers just as individual like you and me, I state this again:

Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

Monopolies, cartels and such need some form of coercion to keep being monopolies.

Yeah. It's called "profit".

Although coercion sometimes leads to profits, profit is not coercion.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

My plan for sustainability is probably close to yours: increase localization of food and energy production, permaculture, renewable energies...

Good! And how would you achieve that? Raising the culture, educating people, free exchange of information so that they don't have to reinvent to wheel every time... scientific method without the profit motive to stand on the way.

The profit motive will tell you to patent a technology, instead of sharing. It would tell you to withdraw information, instead of sharing it. It would tell you to plan intrinsic obsolescence on what you produce, so that you can sell more in the future even though it's unnecessary. It would tell you to make crappy things, to save money due to the price mechanism. It would tell you to pollute, because it costs much less than using proper productions systems and materials.

To sum up, it's one of the most wasteful and inefficient systems you can think of.

I plan to do it myself and educate those around me.
So called intellectual property is not private property. I'm against intellectual property.
We need private property to manage scarce resources, but information can be replicated at no cost.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

I just think we don't have to sacrifice freedom for that.

I agree.

Sacrificing free trade is sacrificing freedom.

Quote

Have you heard about peak oil?

Sure. It's one of the many aspects of the unsustainability of the current economic model.

Have you heard of the loss of biodiversity, rampant desertification, overfishing, soil erosion, ecosystems destruction... ?

Peak oil is just of of the many symptoms that there is something fundamentally wrong with this system.
[/quote]

Exponential growth in oil (and other resources) production has made us think that our exponential monetary system is sustainable, which is false.
The green revolution (science powered, with the noble aim of feeding the world) has destroyed our soils, but oil derived fertilizers keep us in the illusion that our land is fertile.
All these illusions are coming to an end. There will be free market after the oil era, but without an exponential monetary system.
The demand for energy will decline with its supply. Energy won't be a non scarce resource in the near future, neither food.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Quote

We just won't have a monetary system that is based on exponential growth like the one we have today. Just because is unsustainable.

+999

Quote

To replace it you don't want money at all.

No necessarily, I see a period of transition where it might be useful. I just see the inevitable consequence of the shift in culture.

And that's your belief.