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.

Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 18:41 UTC

Are you capable of holding a civil conversation? Or do you get off on playing the role of internet tough guy and flexing your net muscles? Flexing your net muscles does not make you right, my points any less valid, and it certainly does not make you someone I would even consider trusting, but, it does give me a good laugh. If you had bothered to educate yourself you would know that, a supply and demand graph have nothing to do with greed making such a thing irrelevent! You would also realize that the actions of those multi millionaires directly contradicts your belief that, money would no longer have value once you have amassed the amount these folks have. After all, if money no longer had any value to those folks they would not bother with being in business to continue making it in the first place! For any individual that certain supply you speak of is reached once they attain five million. Actually, you could go even lower than that five hundred thousand would be suitable. But for now we will go with the five million figure, many people hit that mark and continue to pursue ways to make money. Which would not make any sense under the logic you are following. Because it clearly shows that money still has value to those folks. Now, you can try and feed me any bs you want but, at least have the self respect to stop telling yourself lies.

People already stash ridiculous amounts of a resource they will never be able to use in a reasonable timeframe that resource is called money! Right there is an example that directly refutes your belief. What the fck are you even talking about? Those people will not remove themselves and considering the type of place Asgardia seeks to be, the government will not take action to remove those folks either! Judging by the wording you used by limited lifespan and removing you mean those folks would be killed. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but they would not be killed simply because they refuse to follow beliefs not their own. Asgardia seeks to be a place above such ignorant thinking and behavior, those folks would in all likelihood be left to believe whatever they choose. Remove folks from the loop huh? Just how is the AI going to be created without the intervention of people!? Last I checked AI systems do not just spontaneously pop into existence and have I repeat have to be created by people and it is that reliance on people that design or planning can not account for.

Actually, even quality designs eventually break down and stop working. Most people do not think of something being of quality design because, they expect the things they buy to be of at least minor quality. It only really hits them when they compare a product with quality design to one of poor design. As long as the product the buy works they hardly ever think of the quality of the design. Get this straight already, it is your over confidence in your abilities I am comparing to those who built those ships, not you personally. Because they too were confident too confident actually that their ships were so well designed that they could not be sunk. Which in each case turned out to be false, the Bismarck was sank by antiquated airplanes armed with torpedoes and it was state of the art for crying out loud! The ship being state of the art is exactly what caused it's demise, the anti aircraft guns could not hit the slow moving planes. Anyway the point is, there will never be a ship that can not be sunk.

You did not have to as it stands to reason drinking said water would be the reason why I turned on the tap in the first place! No, most people will not, some will but, not all will. You are speaking as if Asgardia will be some dictatorship and you would be the dictator. Just who the hell do you think you are anyway with this talk of limited lifespans and people removing themselves from the equasion bull shit? No, no you have not judging by your own words, you repeatedly act as if everyone but you is a moron and that no one can best you. You are so incredibly arrogant that you have convinced yourself of your own bull shit! The initial AI system would still have to be made by humans!

So, you use open source coding and introduce the problem of people with ill intent being able to directly sabotage the project, oh, yes that's real smart and it still does not remove the threat the human factor poses! You do not take me seriously, this should bother me why? Yes, trying to bull shit me is quite pointless. Actually, what they would be seeing is, someone who for some odd reason does not seem to understand that, by using the plural of the word problem/issues I have addressed all that could possibly arise and do not need to be specific as you should be fully aware of the issues I am referring to. Hey EyeR, in case you have not been paying attention, there is more than the 0.1% of folks who can not follow the pretty ideals you and so many others seem to think will magically transforms folks into a bunch capable of creating a utopian society. Just look at all the drama going on in the world do you really think that just 0.1% of folks is causing it? It is far more likely that only 0.1% of folks are ready to follow those pretty ideals Asgardia's philosophy is built upon. While others are on the fence and yet others are not. The environment can play a role in how someone acts, but it does not have as big an impact as you think. I grew up in what most folks would consider a bad neigborhood, one that lead many into the streets because it was a rough place. Yet I never ended up there and there were other personal factors in my life that can and have been attributed to putting people on that path. I instead became the opposite of my environment, which shows that the environment really has little if anything to do with how folks behave. I simply did not want to do all the math in my head and no, it is not a sign of confusion. You keep telling yourself that bs if you like but, you can not pull the wool over my eyes. You waste your time with insults not because of anything I have done but because you are not wise enough to understand that. Insulting me needlessly only makes you look bad and me laugh at you. So, go ahead and keep flexing your net muscles, maybe one day you will win the award for internet tough guy of the year!

  Updated  on Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 21:03 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 01:05 UTC

Erm, what was particularly uncivil?

I'm not playing any particular role, and my "net muscles" most certainly have not been flexed. What would make your points invalid are generally the points themselves.

Like the one suggesting that a supply/demand graph isn't the standard tool of measure by which the price of a good is set for a given set of supply over a given set demand and doesn't have any relevance to the concept of infinite supply reducing the value of basically everything to that close to zero it gets difficult to measure. And not for you to measure, for me to measure. Especially a few generations into equipment paid for by the previous generation of equipments output reducing cost beyond relative zero and into absolute zero cost to this supply . Glad to see it gives you a chuckle, if there's one thing someone should never be without, it's humour.

Five million is nothing - I could spend more than that in a single transaction. It's not that impressive, as you yourself state many people hit that mark. There's always those around them with more though. And if they covet for more, then they will seek it. However, within a post-scarcity environment it's pretty difficult to make money when there's nothing you can't get for free. Especially as this means should you actually make money, there's no real way of spending it - why would any one want it? it's not even good toilet paper. It will have no value. This - again - is not enough to kill greed within itself, and it shall manifest in other forms - but these are all able to be dealt with in a reasonable manner until they remove themselves from the equasion and such behaviours no longer exhibit. There is ultimate sense to this logic, you seem to be the only person to contest this and continually do so. Ofc, this is not a measure within itself, but it might be something to ponder. You may lable this "BS" if you wish, but this doesn't adjust the truth. I find lying generally most distasteful and to yourself is the most rediculous concept imaginable. Like suggesting I would intend on executing people for exhibiting personality defects, as opposed to the specifically highlighted naturally short lifespan and "the fullness of time" solving the problem for you with remarkably less effort. Again, I'm lazy. This means I work smarter, not harder.

Most people are unsuitably equipped to notice a quality design, in honesty. As previously mentioned, they only tend to notice such at the point of failure. However, some things don't fail because the operating mechanics are the laws of physics themselves and thusly cannot fail - like metamaterial lighting solutions. Where there are people there will be thermal bleed, where there is heat, there is light. Or the "Living Architechture" in development by Professor Rachel Armstrong proven by utlising engineered protocells in the waterways of venice to calcify the wooden columns and the bonus of the capillary effect drawing them up into the buildings to start patching up cracks in brickworks and leading to developments such as self-repairing road surfiscants and concretes. They don't fail, because they are quality designs, based around the laws of physics itself.

You can compare my confidence to the designers of the titanic - just as I compare your baseless fears to pre-neolithic man first discovering fire, and not going back into the cave for week in case it comes back and gets angry.

I am no dictator. Being a clear advocate of concepts like direct democracy, the abolishment of money, people generally thinking for themselves etc it should be difficult for you to continue such an accusatory angle. Such concepts are not traditionally the most secure way of establishing a dictatorship, and such a conclustion is most delusional. As is the "bullshit" questioning who I think I am. I'm EyeR. It says that on the label. You may - or as evidence suggests, may not - of noticed. I talk of things like "limited lifespans" becuase it is a biological fact. This is entirely why reproduction evolved. I wasn't aware this wasn't common knowlege, or required some special permission to be required to reference. I don't act like everyone but me is a moron - generally they tend to offer evidence that specifically suggests this before this is entertained. And yes, unfortunately there are a lot of people really eager to prove this. You may know one. The initial AI system will be made by humans. But it will train itself. Then it'll build a better AI system. The first part of this is currently happening.

Open source within itself is not a defacto compromised system. By constrast, you will find infinitely more closed source software of malicious intent. As evidenced by any open source project that was actually used » found to be deficient » upon refusal or inability to have changed to sane » forked and changed to sane. Case in point, truecrypt. Open source cryptography software, intentionally weakened. Forked and improved, called Veracrypt for distinguish. Everyone migrates to Veracrypt. Compare to say, bitlocker - Microsoft's offering of a similar ilk. Backdoor discovered, backdoor better hidden, windows users clueless due to independant audit unavailable of source, or the compiler, or the machine compiling the executable(and nowadays thanks to persistent infections, and the ease of elevating to SYSTEM level privliges in windows allowing writing to firmware, it's possible to trojan software as the, say, USB hub writes any executable to a thumbstick). Open source win. And there's a consistent pattern here, in the realms of security. I can fill the 10,000 available characters of a post with examples. And common it responds to threats faster. You still don't know how much open source software is operating what around you. Or you would not make such statements.

It's such statements that mean in all honesty, I cannot take you seriously. You cannot take you seriously enough to do some basic research. This isn't supposed to bother you, as much as attempt to gain more substance placed into your arguments, a little bit of thought behind them. And preferably some research. Like finding the precise point I had suggested that magically overnight folks will transform into a utopian society. Becomming the opposite of your environment is both the ultimate proof that the environment can adjust behaviours, and that exposure to needless greed can curb similar trangression in the next generation.

I don't do math at all, let alone in my head. This is what computers are for - they're really good at it too. You should try it some time. I'm confident you've such functionality on the machine already. This is not an attempt to flex "net muscles" but to attempt to impress upon such operational procedures in order to improve possible feedback and prevent such mistakes in the future. Such is hardly rocket surgery, but there again if you'd make such a simple mistake then I would have to because I'm just another interwebs tough guy.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 08:00 UTC

How about pretty much every reply of yours they all contained direct and indirect insults even after the admin team specifically asked both of us not to personally attack the other! Sure, you are, you are hostile for no reason at all, you could just as easily leave out the personal attacks and get your point across. But you for whatever odd reason insist on engaging in that pointless behavior. That is what I call an internet tough guy flexing his net muscles. This is why I justly identified most of the content of your arguments as bs. No where have I said that a supply and demand graph is not the standard measure for the price of an item. We were not even talking about such a thing in that context anyway. We were debating your belief that a surplus has an affect on greed, a topic which I gave several examples to the contrary of and you for whatever reason brought up a supply and demand graph as if it had any relevance to the discussion, which it does not. You probably thought doing so would allow you to steer my attention towards another topic because you knew that you could not refute the examples I had presented as evidence against your belief. Well, you were incorrect, all you managed to do was confirm that you were wrong.

There is no however don't you get it? The example quite clearly refutes your claim by showing that money still has value to those folks and they have a surplus of it! Your claim has been proven to be false accept it, move on, and stop fibbing to yourself. So? The others more than likely want to avoid being caught up in the discussion. Something for which they can not be blamed and can not be used by you as a sign of you being right. It is a fact that is neither here nor there as far as the fact that I challenge your thoughts seeing as to how I have reason to. I did not suggest it, you did when you said the folks who would refuse to follow your beliefs would have a limited lifespan. You were not referring to the fact that people have relatively short lifespans not in the context you used the word in.

Apparently you do not find telling falsehoods distasteful, you told one in the beginning of this very response and you have told others in other replies. For example like when you started claiming that I said I would physically harm folks in the "punish corruption with death by law" topic. Even though you have no proof to back the claim up with. That right there is bs, people can notice something being of quality design without it failing. In fact, the thing in question does not even have to be an appliance or machine of some kind. It could something as simple as a talented musician playing his instrument or a piece of artwork. Of course concrete fails, it breaks down like every other material in existence and that break down leads to loss of structural integrity causing objects made with concrete to fail. Even self repairing concrete is still subject to failures, all it would take is the damage to overwhelm it's ability to repair itself. Like what would be experienced in a major earthquake.

I know I can, I do not need your permission to do so, just as you do not need mine. The difference is my fears are not baseless, the things I worry about can still happen and like I already told you that means those problems were never solved. While your overconfidence is baseless considering, I have been able to give you three separate examples that definitively prove that building an unsinkable ship is not possible. What accusatory angle? I merely made an observation based off of the wording you used and your behavior. You worded things in a way that made it seem like people would have to behave the way you want them to or else. That is the kind of childish crap you expect to come out some dictator's mouth.

I know what your screen name is but, you have not answered the question. You specifically referred to a group of people having limited lifespans, which hints at or suggests that they would not be around very long to cause problems and then you mention the same group removing themselves from the equasion. Well the only way for them to do that is to commit suicide. Which suggests that, you expect for folks who would otherwise cause problems to off themselves for your benefit. So again I ask just who the hell do you think you are anyway? Right about now I would be telling you to pull it out, but I will not as to be civil. Who mentioned anything about the software having ill intent? Software can not have ill intent, it is not sentient, it is only a tool. The people who created the software on the other hand can have ill intent. Yes, I would as the amount of things controlled by open source software does not matter. The fact that open source software is so easy to modify makes it great but, it also makes it less secure for the very same reason. My becoming the opposite of the environment in which I grew up is solely due to the conscious choice I made not to end up as some one of poor character. The environment did not have squat to do with it, if it did I would not be the person I am now. I would be the opposite and would have physically harmed many folks by now. All greed is needless and people are exposed to it all the time and guess what? That exposure has not resulted in the curbing of similar transgressions in future generations one bit!

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 11:57 UTC

I understand your concern, and you're more than welcome to express your own opinion about those matters. However, everyone here is entitled to do the same, and it implies some members may disagree with you. The goal of the conversation is to understand the perception of everyone included in order to formulate a unified conclusion/solution. If for some reason an agreement cannot be reached, you are encouraged to agree, that you disagree /discontinue the discussion. Thank you for your patience.

  Last edited by:  Jewell Ledoux (Global Admin, Asgardian)  on Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 11:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 13:51 UTC

This topic will be locked at the request of the user. Thank you for understanding. Please see for further information.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 14:20 UTC

I am more than prepared to agree that we simply cannot agree.

However, I do feel the requirement to point out that a statement of fact doesn't entirely constitute an insult - and should you be insulted by this fact, then adjusting this from being fact seems a more sensible resolution than taking umbrage.

A supply/demad graph was specifically suggested as referance material, in support of my concept. No less than five times. Making it highly relevant in that context. In particular what it does to the value of money, at infinite supply, and the previously well documented effect of money on greed.

The failure in materials like self-repairing concrete occur when it's exhausted the protocell supply, as exposure to the environment through cracks caused by things like major earthquakes caused them to begin reacting off making more concrete to fill the gaps. Being a porous material, it's possible to make it absorb more protocells meaning it should be possible to maintain self-repair status. This system only stops working when the system doesn't exist anymore. Like physics itself.

The accusatory angle would be the specific reference to a naturally short lifespan being portrayed as intent to artificially shorten lifespan. Whilst being able to find nothing that a reasonable person could take as evidence to support such claims. You made an incredibly poor job of observing the precise wordings, lending this equal care and attention as most of your other arguments, whilst effectively calling me childish dictator, some more things a reasonable person should not find much to support.

You do know the screename? Are you sure because there's lots of previous evidence to suggest that observation of such simple detail seems to present difficulties? There's even previous evidence of you being adamant about this sort of thing, and as it turns out you'd not bothered to pay the slightest attention to any relevant details. That should within itself answer the question, it was possibly why that pseudonym was expressly chosen. I don't think I are. EyeR.

Software crafted with express purpose of "unwanted effects" can be readily defined as as software of ill intent. The fact open source is easy to modify means it only gets modified to be less secure if that's what you expressly do to it. Unlike closed source, if this is done by someone else, you can remove it. As previously mentioned multiple times, it's not a defacto invite for anyone to do anything with your system. Unless you expressly setup your system thusly. Actually taking the time to learn about things can help you understand them.

The concious decisions that you made in observation of your environment is precisely the factor of which I speak that will ensure eventual change post-scarcity. It was precisely the environment you was subjected to that lead to you making this descision. It had everything to do with it - you see it and didn't want to be like it. Currently, exposure to greed isn't curbed in all because it is offset by many things. Like a continual requirement to spend more money.

With that said, taking into account various opinions. I'm about ready to walk away. My standpoint should be clear, and enough holes poked into logic fails to furnish any reasonably thinking individual with some interesting points to mull over.