Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 05, 2011, 04:58:36 PM

Quote from: Rassah on July 05, 2011, 04:16:10 PM

The only example on that list that existed for years is the Solectria. I'd like to know how much it cost (my guess is A LOT), how long it took to recharge (my guess is at least overnight/8hours), and how durable was it (considering the batteries it used, I'm guessing it lasted maybe a year before you needed to replace the batteries).

The technology is there, just do some research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7938001.stm

Trust me, I've had A LOT of interest in electric cars since the 90's. The technology is there, but a lot of practical stuff (like these batteries or ultracapacitors) are so new ans so expensive that it'll be a few years before they can be afforded by mass consumers.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 05, 2011, 04:58:36 PM

VAST majority of crap is useless in the first place and we don't need it.
Then we have stuff that could last, and it doesn't.
Then you have actual technology that becomes naturally obsolete, which, again, could be optimised if we planned things to be modular and easily upgradable.

Profit is the act of selling to people what they want, so all the useless crap and stuff that doesn't last is either actually useful to someone, or is made cheaply enough that people are willing to save money and buy it again later if they need it. The idea that "companies only sell just enough to keep us buying more" is at most a conspiracy theory, because any new company that comes in and sells more durable stuff for the same amount will wipe out all other competitors instantly.
Arguing about "how long stuff lasts" is very subjective. I could just as easily say that an RBE city is something that can last, but doesn't, because they didn't build it out of gold and diamonds, and so it'll decompose and break down within 100 years.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 05, 2011, 04:58:36 PM

Quote from: Rassah on July 05, 2011, 04:16:10 PM

So your answer is to change the culture of the ENTIRE world, otherwise this idea won't work? And this isn't a utopian impossible dream why?

That's exactly the same thing people told women when they claimed equal rights.

What was the logical and human-nature based reason to deny women to think and make their own choices? There wasn't any. That's why they got their rights. Companies wishing to put women to work and thus improve their profit was another reason.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 05, 2011, 04:58:36 PM

Quote from: Rassah on July 05, 2011, 04:16:10 PM

I'm totally serious. Why won't the vast majority of people in RBE NOT just go into mostly much easier to do things, like studying religion, arts, or philosophy?

... and there would be no problem whatsover.
You need way less than 1% of the population to "work" on production and maintenance.
Please talk to some real engineers who know this stuff before coming back to post you opinions.

Aside from your apparent claim that over 99% of the world's work is nothing but bureaucratic paper pushing...
My grandfather is an engineer, from a rather well known line of engineers starting with Tsiolkovsky. It took just him alone to think up of a radical new idea for a levitation system that could revolutionize our transportation. The results of that 1% of the population work is a few pieces of paper and some patents. It will take a CONSIDERABLY larger % of the population to actually make it happen, and so far we haven't found ANYONE willing to do the millions worth of needed infrastructure for free.
As for the "no problem whatsoever," what do you think will happen to Saudi Arabia when their oil runs out? What do you think will happen to an RBE city when the machines break down, or something breaks in the software, or when those machines run out of resources needed to work, and everyone got too comfortable sitting at home painting or philosophizing instead of studying the difficult math and sciences needed to keep things running? Likewise, human capital is a resource as well. What will happen when the resource of people who know how to run things drops below the amount NEEDED to run things? Your only defense has been "it takes a low number, eg 1%."

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 05, 2011, 04:58:36 PM

Quote from: Rassah on July 05, 2011, 04:16:10 PM

Unlike RBE's claims, resources are not unlimited (we have finite supply of certain minerals).

This proves you haven't read a single page of the RBE proposals. We can't go on with the discussion if you talk nonsense.

You mean like this? http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
Where it says that "scarce resources" can be overcome by technology? Do we have the technology to create petroleum (plastics), steel, rare-earth minerals, or fertilizers out of nothing? At most, better technology will make those resources cheaper to obtain, which is what we're already trying to do in a free market economy. Now sure why RBE would be better. Yes, I have read those.

By the way, I love their example:

Quote

consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival.

Would an anti-RBE equivalent be something like this?
consider this: if a group of people with tablet computers, solar panels, and wind generators were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their sustainable technology would be irrelevant to their survival.

The real answer to this example should really be HOW those people got the stuff they are holding:
If the people with money got all that money from running businesses that specialized in food production, water purification, and farming equipment, chances are they'll have the knowledge to apply the skills they sold back home to this island ans still survive.
If the RBE people got their computers, solar panels, and wind generators because they were given to them, and their actual home professions were things like professional TV watchers, philosophers, or random garage-engineer tinkerers, they'll be entertained by their computers, but will otherwise likely die.