Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 14:55 UTC
Re: Eliminate the monetary system and here's why. ¶
The key difference in the senario I paint and the actuality of now you rely upon for your viewpoint is that of money itself being attributed value. If you of been bothered to research this subject, you would understand what a supply/demand graph is, and how to read one. Should be good for you, you don't even need numbers you can just look at the lines. I may of suggested this several times before. If you could of been bothered, you would then understand that the more of something you have, the lower the price gets. Once your supply nears infinite, the price is too low to actually reasonably consider collecting. There is more effort in the collection than the gain from collecting it. Therefore, money will become meaningless, once the supply hits a suitable level. There is nothing naive about thinking once anything is available with the same ease as turning on a tap, people are not going to stash up large amounts of anything they're unable to use in a reasonable timeframe. As evidenced by having something of incredible value, and you not drawing yourself 3x what you need steadily collecting yourself piles of glasses of water. If you'd been educated, you'd realise this line of thinking isn't being "duped" it's based on the rules of which the economy operates and behavioural trends exhibited globally, even outside of monetary systems.
All people do have a limited lifespan, but it's only the ones refusing to adjust problematic behviours that are of specific interest in removing - and they will remove themselves in the fullness of time by the natural lifespan ultimately solving this issue.
Again, reference to danger with no solid grounding. Again, system failures should be planned for, the design itself based around this happening. Prevention is impossible on every front, and here redundancies and maintainence/replacement cycles cover it nicely. Even nicer as due to the number of sensors, and the number of readings per second required to utilise the data effectively, and the number of reactions per second suggests this will be by "AI" and effectively take care of itself, done right then end-to-end automated. People with sinister intentions can be accounted for in the design, by removing people from the loop and the AI can take care of that, too. Yes, sensible planning and good design results in something trustable. Otherwise you'd still be sat in your cave, shivering, staring at the wall. When you think of quality designs you likely don't think of quality designs - You only really notice something that's been designed well once it stops working. A quality design can't stop working, unless you intentionally smash it.
You seem to compare me frequently to the designers of the titanic simply because I do not devolve into a state of unrequired fear about problems solved in the 1960's. Again countermeasures are not the intention. The system is the countermeasures. There is nothing dangerous about expecting failure and having everything already in place to account for this failure without impacting any provision. What is dangerous is not understanding something and then fearing it due to your ignorance, attempting to spread such ignorance. Education is the key to a lot of things. Rather than worry, I just research then solve the problems. It's the sort of thing made possible by achieving an education. Or thinking.
I didn't say anything about actually drinking more water than you need to, just collecting more than you need to drink.
Yes, most will act in the manner I predict, post-scarcity. Yes, there will still be those who cannot handle the infinite supply and try to collect it all, and or end up trying to build the largest pile of shiny things - but as previously highlighted, this will be a minority response overall and those that cannot or refuse to see the futility will remove themselves from the equasion. I would expect psychological treatments to be available, but as previously mentioned this must be a route they themselves choose for it to be effective. As previously mentioned, their limited lifespan will serve to remove this problem, and the next generation are unlikley to absorb. As evidenced globally by children that grow up watching their parents doing stupid things that they themselves never do. For someone who's so confident in the failure potential to anything, you're a little early to be offering 100% assurances?
There is incredibly little I'm incorrect about, I'm fully aware of how easily some muppets can be manipulated - FB scored 78%+ with some tests, employing incredibly subtle techniques capable of far more damages than that you'd likely of been referring to - Although this is arguable as to if that's representative of the wider population, or just those who find it that hard to think they cannot see the dangers in what they are doing. I have not ignored the "human factor" - and I shall readily admit it's the facet that I'm the least comfortable with the management of - but I have observed enough human behaviour over the years to make a reasonable assessment of behavioural trends as individuals, small groups and en-mass. And again, much of this does not hinge upon myself. Certainly, my intentions was for human design, and programming - but AI is making great advancements in both of these fields. By the time we get around to doing it, it might not be us that actually does it.
You can trivially solve problems like "leverage" by going open source, like everything we're doing should be. Anything that is introduced that shouldn't be can be removed, and if it isn't then the project just gets forked and called something else. Kidnapping family members then becomes illogical as you can't kidnap everyone and ulitmately someone else just picks up the threads. Cut one down, two more rise up. Ill intent and emotional flux should not be possible to long term impact success. This has been proven consistently, in multiple fields, across a wide range of projects and initatives. This is reality.
I can assure you, the only thing I'm not taking seriously is yourself. It's a little difficult when you can't even be bothered to educate yourself on the topic. The only reason I'm responding at all is not for your benefit - this has been concluded long ago as futile - but that of any third party that's bothered to read this far. So they can see you can write "dangerous" and then provide for absolutely no foundation for this claim, other than fear of what is to complicated for you to understand. Like counting past ten.
Yes, in order to prevent various drama of Earth - like money - from traversing into space, we need to leave that on Earth. With regards to people, there's likely <0.1% that can accurately conform to "ideals" - and it is truely meaningless if these are not adhered to - but with that said in the interests of the "inclusive" founding ethics the 99.9% should not simply be left berift and abandoned. It may take several generations for some of the lesser desirable habits picked up on Earth to relinquish. Most will occur in the first three. Environment can impact largely on behaviour, so the sooner they are in a more appreciable environment, the sooner they can be expected to exhibit more appreciable behaviours.
How could you forget the initial rigs would still be replicating? it's a pretty important concept, and the fact you'd come up with severely wrong numbers(and I still can't see how you arrived at those numbers) should of been a clue, but instead you took it to mean I was wrong - because I had to be, everything I do is dangerous and based around lack of research and inability to understand. Over the fullness of time, you shall see this to be a recurring theme - ofc, you can do something about that now, and start education which should save you a lot of embaressments. Certainly, failing to account for the inital 512 replicating would be a sign of confusion, as it's impossible to get to this point without those 512 replicating. This doesn't "just happen", and with continually doubling(accurately) it should be impossible to arrive at any other figure.
I don't waste effort and time insulting you - I waste effort and time not insulting you, you make it incredibly easy and do most of the work yourself leaving me only to highlight it.
I've still yet to be highlighted of the "many flaws" in the proposal to unfold an initative that propagates deep space mining in order to provide for the thousands of megatonnes delivered in a reasonable timeframe we would ideally require for any significant operations and almost everything required for long term existence, including a rate of supply suitable to remove the requirement for money - especially compared to, say, the proposal to sink tens or hundreds of millions into an island, another few hundred million on materials, another hundred million on moving them to the island, another few hundred million getting the materials turned into infrastructure with around 80k/day running costs - minimally - whilst only actually providing for 0.01% of target and doing absolutely nothing towards furthering "nation in space", or reducing the approximately three thousand years it would take to launch enough mass just to build a suitable thermal dissipation system for that much organic thermal input.
The "you" in the bicycle example as an incredibly generic "you" - not you as an individual, tho I suspect once you'd have to walk five miles from one end of the island t'other in adverse weather a few times, when you could of done it in three mins as opposed to ten, you may feel differently about what happens with the collective transport solution. The intention was not to predict your reaction but to suggest a senario within which a shared resource can be removed from the playing field and effect everyone else in a way they may not appreciate in order to get you thinking about the moral and ethical consequences of action.