Election : Director of Social Engineering

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Cedayon
Well, one system involves determining what job a citizen should perfrom, and telling them to do that job. The choice to not do that job is sometimes available (depends on the system), but that choice means they won't work at all. It's pretty much a "the government's way or the highway" sort of deal. Is something else happening in our current economy? What about the proposed Green economy? How would people become employees (ie they submit a request to the employer, or to the government, or do they receive one or more possibilities from the government)?

Today, in our current economy, no one is forced to take a job he doesnt want. A heavy bureaucracy analysis the people's will and propose several jobs to each citizen : they are then free to accept one of them, several of them, or none of them. They are free to accept it by law and by fact, since there is no economic pressure used against them.
In a Green economy, the bureaucracy medium would be suppressed : the outstanding and direct contact with the Mother Matrix, Gaia, would be so deep that we wouldnt need any kind of bureaucracy. On the contrary, the general knowledge -- being taught or being "presient" by Planet's words of scientific materialism would encourage a natural way of recycling and preserving natural ressources to a minimum consumation, incresaing even more our efficiency.
As for the relation between economico-inustrial groups and the State, there would be a half-free market, half state property : any industry and economy needed by human inhabitants on Planet, set up by Planet herself, would stay nationalized, while the rest would benefit of a total freedom of exchange, motivated only by the laws of supply and demand, not guaranteed by an evil fiction of an invisible hand keeping things in order, by guaranteed by the centaurian empathy herself : Planet would be this invisible hand.

Meaning that certain people would not be able to get certain jobs? I'd take that as a given to the extent that someone without medical training couldn't be a doctor. Or do you mean that the poor would be "forced" by circumstances to work in low-paying jobs(perhaps in appalling conditions not known to the government) because they couldn't afford the education to become eligible for the better jobs? That's a real concern for me, but I'm very confident that we can solve the problem of this sort of poverty if we have enough wealth to fund educational programs and the appropriate infrastructure. There don't have to be any poor people! I've already gone over (in another thread) how all drones under 40/20/40 could be converted to presumably-above-the-poverty-line citizens. Or do you think there are still poor even in drone-less society? If so, point them out to me and I'll look into how their conditions could be improved under FM.

Well, that is indeed that the poorest would be forced to work for food and not only food. Back on earth, oxygene was free because there was no work needed to provide it, while today we have to work to produce a breathable atmosphere. Under a FM system, people would have to pay for their housing, their food, their oxygene, just to stay alive. So to stay alive, they will have to work. Seeing our large expansion of automated industry, there will sure be more workers than jobs, and workers would be paid as little as possible.
Of course there is the State subvention by energy allocation, which would calm down the situation, providing the dying people just what they need to survive --air, food, housing-- but that will certainly not let them emancipate economically.

Sorry for rambling on, but I'm really trying to find the people you say will suffer under FM, and find out how to ensure the system will work for them too. FM = more wealth = better conditions for everyone if (big if) that wealth is properly used.

Thats not much true : FM = more wealth for the richest upper classes, created by the exploitation of the poorest.

Just tell me if I have forgot anything and I'll be glad to answer your question.

[GeneralTacticus]

Today, in our current economy, no one is forced to take a job he doesnt want. A heavy bureaucracy analysis the people's will and propose several jobs to each citizen :

Doesn't a heavy bureaucracy tend to obstruct the people's will?

They are free to accept it by law and by fact, since there is no economic pressure used against them.

Thus, if a person chooses not to work, they are treated the same as if they do? Is this really fair to people who do choose to work?

In a Green economy, the bureaucracy medium would be suppressed : the outstanding and direct contact with the Mother Matrix, Gaia, would be so deep that we wouldnt need any kind of bureaucracy.

You seem to be venturing into some kind of Green mysticism here. What on earth do you mena? What place does Planet have in governing our society?

On the contrary, the general knowledge -- being taught or being "presient" by Planet's words of scientific materialism would encourage a natural way of recycling and preserving natural ressources to a minimum consumation, incresaing even more our efficiency.

This isn't the Cult of Planet, you know. Planet isn't God.

As for the relation between economico-inustrial groups and the State, there would be a half-free market, half state property : any industry and economy needed by human inhabitants on Planet, set up by Planet herself, would stay nationalized,

IOW, pretty much everything would stay under the control of the government, which would in turn be controlled by the 'Planet', an alien entity which may or may not have our bast interests at heart?

while the rest would benefit of a total freedom of exchange, motivated only by the laws of supply and demand, not guaranteed by an evil fiction of an invisible hand keeping things in order, by guaranteed by the centaurian empathy herself : Planet would be this invisible hand.

You're making absolutely no sense witht his paragraph. Please clarify.

Well, that is indeed that the poorest would be forced to work for food and not only food. Back on earth, oxygene was free because there was no work needed to provide it, while today we have to work to produce a breathable atmosphere. Under a FM system, people would have to pay for their housing, their food, their oxygene, just to stay alive. So to stay alive, they will have to work.

Do you really think we would be stupid enough to privatise life-support systems? That would be even worse than giving 'Planet' control over our economy.

Seeing our large expansion of automated industry, there will sure be more workers than jobs, and workers would be paid as little as possible.

Or rather, 'unskilled labour' will become largely obsolete, and be replaced by the skilled labour needed to maintain and administer industrial automation (or work on things that machine may not be able to do).

Of course there is the State subvention by energy allocation, which would calm down the situation, providing the dying people just what they need to survive --air, food, housing-- but that will certainly not let them emancipate economically.

'Emancipate'? You're acting as if there's something they need to be freed from, and that your proposed system of control by the all-wise, all-knowing Planet will do so.

Thats not much true : FM = more wealth for the richest upper classes, created by the exploitation of the poorest.

Or rather, under our own society, in which automation provides the 'unskilled labour', wealth for everyone, created by the exploitation of technology.

Just tell me if I have forgot anything and I'll be glad to answer your question.

How exactly is your system of total control by Planet supposed to function as anything other than a dictatorship of native life?

[GeneralTacticus]

None, I say, while a democratic free market will allow them to choose their job de lego sed non de facto -- I like this Bakounian expression, of right, but not in fact -- a Planned economy would not force them to chose their job, neither a Green economy, for the simple reason that it gives us no way to force anyone.

Now how exactly does FM prevent one from choosing a job? Obviously you're limited by what jobs are available, and whether people are willing to hire you for them (obviously, if you've just dropped out of high school with abysmal marks, don't expect to get a job in quantum physics), but how does the market prevent you from picking a job? And how would this be any different under your proposed system (where people are offered a choice by a bureaucrat, and it's that, or nothing else - even if they don't have to work at all, which is another issue)?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Doesn't a heavy bureaucracy tend to obstruct the people's will?

No. Does the governors obstruct the people's will, or do they carry it ? They carry it.
-----

Thus, if a person chooses not to work, they are treated the same as if they do? Is this really fair to people who do choose to work?

Not its not unfair. These people are not forced to worked, they choose to. A idle person is a sick person, because only work -- not any specific kind of work, but the work itself is what people naturally wish to do, as improving their direct or indirect environment. Thats how it has been since the beginning of civilization.
-----

You seem to be venturing into some kind of Green mysticism here. What on earth do you mena? What place does Planet have in governing our society?

Planet is a living entity, as you surely know. She speaks to us, and since everything we use to build us, our society, is from her, is hers, she definetly has a place in how we governe our society. We cannot do anything without her, for she is the source of what we truly are, social beings.

-----

This isn't the Cult of Planet, you know. Planet isn't God.

Im not deifying Planet, Im simply saying that because she is the living source of our society, she has to be listened. Moreover, her advices are good advices.

-----

IOW, pretty much everything would stay under the control of the government, which would in turn be controlled by the 'Planet', an alien entity which may or may not have our bast interests at heart?

I didnt made myself clear on that : the planet, via centaurian empathy, will define what are our needs, and the industries that are involved with what the planet has defined as our needs will remain nationalized.

-----

You're making absolutely no sense witht his paragraph. Please clarify.

quote:
while the rest [of the industry, ie what is not considered as a need] would benefit of a total freedom of exchange, motivated only by the laws of supply and demand. The balance of the markets would not be guaranteed by an evil fiction of an invisible hand keeping things in order, but guaranteed by the centaurian empathy herself : Planet isthis invisible hand.

-----

Do you really think we would be stupid enough to privatise life-support systems? That would be even worse than giving 'Planet' control over our economy.

Yes I do believe you'll be foolish enough to do that. Wouldnt you provatise farms, condensors, childrens creches, etc... ?

-----

Or rather, 'unskilled labour' will become largely obsolete, and be replaced by the skilled labour needed to maintain and administer industrial automation (or work on things that machine may not be able to do).

And what do you exactly intend to do with these unskilled laborers ? Even if you generously skill them all, which I doubt you will, that would just be the same : too many workers and not enough jobs.

'Emancipate'? You're acting as if there's something they need to be freed from, and that your proposed system of control by the all-wise, all-knowing Planet will do so.

Certainly we all are to be freed from our basic economic necessities -- get food, get rest, get air --- that can be done by energy allocation. But what about get knowledge, get love, etc... Thats not provided by energy allocation. Planet has nothing to do with that, Im just pointing the fact that energy allocation will just help our citizens to survive, not to emancipate them economically.

How exactly is your system of total control by Planet supposed to function as anything other than a dictatorship of native life?

Theres absolutely no control from Planet. Planet, being the very source of our economy, would simply be the guarantee that free exchange benefits to us all -- therefore becoming sort of the invisible hand of free market. For the same reasons, Planet would also separate what has to be nationalized -- industries that maintain us human social beings alive -- from what can be freely traded -- industries that emancipates us as human social beings.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Now how exactly does FM prevent one from choosing a job? Obviously you're limited by what jobs are available, and whether people are willing to hire you for them (obviously, if you've just dropped out of high school with abysmal marks, don't expect to get a job in quantum physics), but how does the market prevent you from picking a job? And how would this be any different under your proposed system (where people are offered a choice by a bureaucrat, and it's that, or nothing else - even if they don't have to work at all, which is another issue)?

FM : One job for ten workers will prevent all of them to choose the job. So they HAVE TO work for underpaid wages that will simply make them able to survive. They have the right to choose, but if they refuse the given choice, they'll die -- not much a choice.
Planned : One job for ten workers should be given to the most qualified worker amongst those willing. They do not work for money, and are thus free to choose or decline the bureaucrats offer.
Green : Same as planned, except that the offers is not made by the bureaucrats, but defined by -- and I do not say the offer is made by, but defined by -- Planet.

[Hercules]

At one stage in Earth's history, industrialisation was an engine of the economy, but then came the growth of service industry as a part replacement and the creation of new types of jobs such as web designers, email answering agencies, PR consultants etc.

But the next stage of career/job/employment stimulus I suspect will be the green / environment industry. So once when industrilisation (and all the low labour costs from labour exploitation and slave labour and its good bits such as innovation) drove the economic engine, so the environmental/planet protection/ preservation and conservation can be a considerable economic engine in its own right.

[Cedayon]

Herc: Interesting, you mean that there will be (or already is) a "environmental protection/preservation industry"? Could you be more specific on what you think, for example, what sort of jobs would exist in such an "industry"?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Thats it, all he can do is to portray what he likes better than what I dislike and post Cedayon's statistics. We're here voting for the person who will carry the will of the people, not for a system.

Oh really? I seem to remember seeing this somewhere.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Go STEP-CCCP Alliance !
Refuse the dictaroship of the markets suppoerted by General Tacticus and abstain to vote for him !
Join the struggle to protect Planete's fragile ecosystem and support Drogue as a governor !

Do the words "Liar" and "Hypocrite" mean anything to you, Mr. Two-faced politician?

[GeneralTacticus]

I also remain rather disturbed dthat the man in charge of structuring our society is one who seems to believe in handing control of our faction over to Planet. The claim that Planet shoudl contorl us because we need it's resources is specious, because the resources that we use, aside form planetpearls, do not come from the fungus, which is what Planet actually is, and in fact the presence of fungus obstructs us in extracting resources.

[Lemmy]

I also remain rather disturbed dthat the man in charge of structuring our society is one who seems to believe in handing control of our faction over to Planet. The claim that Planet shoudl contorl us...

Hurray for twisting word

Theres absolutely no control from Planet

[GeneralTacticus]

"I didnt made myself clear on that : the planet, via centaurian empathy, will define what are our needs, and the industries that are involved with what the planet has defined as our needs will remain nationalized."

Sounds pretty much like control to me.

"In a Green economy, the bureaucracy medium would be suppressed : the outstanding and direct contact with the Mother Matrix, Gaia, would be so deep that we wouldnt need any kind of bureaucracy. "

Implying that Planet takes the place of the bureaucracy, i.e., effectiveley takes the place of our government.

"while the rest would benefit of a total freedom of exchange, motivated only by the laws of supply and demand, not guaranteed by an evil fiction of an invisible hand keeping things in order, by guaranteed by the centaurian empathy herself : Planet would be this invisible hand."

I think that one pretty much speaks for itself; not only does it contradict itself by claiming that the only regulation would be that of supply and demand, and then going on to say that these forces ('the invisible hand') would be replaced by Planet, meaning that they're not governed by supply and demand at all, but it also implies, once again, that Planet will control this part of the economy as well.

I think these statements make a mockery of Pan's claim that '"there's absolutely no control from Planet", particularly when the rest of the paragraph goes on to say:

"Planet, being the very source of our economy, would simply be the guarantee that free exchange benefits to us all -- therefore becoming sort of the invisible hand of free market."

With no explanation whatsoever of how it's suppsoed to achieve this without controlling the economy, and:

"For the same reasons, Planet would also separate what has to be nationalized -- industries that maintain us human social beings alive -- from what can be freely traded -- industries that emancipates us as human social beings."

So Planet determines what we need to keep us alive, and exercises control over that, and then determines what we need to be social beings, and exercises contol over that, too, in place of the market.

"Absolutely no control from Planet." Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

EDIT: and I beleive I forgot this too:

"Planet is a living entity, as you surely know. She speaks to us, and since everything we use to build us, our society, is from her, is hers, she definetly has a place in how we governe our society. "

[GeneralTacticus]

Herc: The only real problem that I can see with that model of development is that 'service jobs' and so forth were created mainly because manufacturing moved away from the West to the Third World, where wages and other costs wer elower and as a consequence profits were higher, so I don't think it quite fits here.

Oh, and of coruse the fact that I can't see how 'conservation' can become an industry, unless you mean trading pollution permits and such, but I don't think you meant that.

[Aaron Blackwell]

Are you sure that what you propose is better than an so-called " Planet control".

I don't mean to be rude, but what you are proposing yourself is Free Market .... which is nothing else than control of our civilization in the hand of a few coroporates.

And before you try to give any more "proofs" that it is not case, Read again the description of Free Market IN THE DATALINKS.

You'll see that the extra drones are not coming from the " right to complain, and freedom to become a drone" or things like that that your previous posts seems to imply but are clearly coming from proverty conditions, unemployements and poverty-related criminality.

Besides, the fact that psych is first used to create Talents before eliminating all drone, shows clearly that a Free Market economy followed by a 40% ECO, 40% SCIENCE, 20 % PSYCH is not meant to help the citizens as a whole community, but rather to prevent rioting by giving wealth to a part of the community to the expanse of the other.

This shows that your point of view are clearly inaccurates and ignores a lot of the realities of Free Market.


To come back to the subjec of having planet " controlling our society", Green is not so much about having planet ruling all of our decisions but rather to allow it to participate in our decision making, by listening to his advices on the situation on planet.

Remember that Planet knows better than any of our most experienced scientists the natural phenomenoms that takes place on planet, how to avoid mindworms and tame them, how to more efficently find and extract all the riches hidden inside the fungus, etc .....

Actually, I see more green as recognizing that the planet is sentient and, as such, should be considered as a citizen with rights to participate and help our decisions making .... especially considering that his unique point of view of the situation could be very usefull in the near future, especially with all the wars that could be happening very soon.

[Hercules]

Waste management and recycling will become increasingly important factors in costs and overheads as people come to realise not taking these into account might lead to even higher costs in the future.

Look at the cost (the run of 'natural' environmental disasters; drought, forest fires , floods,) to the old USA back on earth in not taking sufficient cognisance of climate change.

The alternative energy / renewal resource industry will grow. Increasingly new developments will require a sustainability assessment. All of these new directions require people to provide strategy, to design, to build, dismantle, transport etc.

Just some thoughts

[GeneralTacticus]

To come back to the subjec of having planet " controlling our society", Green is not so much about having planet ruling all of our decisions but rather to allow it to participate in our decision making, by listening to his advices on the situation on planet.

I'm not talking about Green as such, I'm talking about Pande's view of it, which, given that he will be the one in charge of implementing it if it gets passed, will probably be what results.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
"I didnt made myself clear on that : the planet, via centaurian empathy, will define what are our needs, and the industries that are involved with what the planet has defined as our needs will remain nationalized."

Sounds pretty much like control to me.

Seeing Planet is the source of all our economy -- she produces nutrients, minerals and energy -- she defines what is our economy as a whole -- that we can separate in two : let's call them survival economy and emancipation economy--, and because we live on her environment, she also defines what maintains us alive or what kill us, whether you like it or not.

-----

"In a Green economy, the bureaucracy medium would be suppressed : the outstanding and direct contact with the Mother Matrix, Gaia, would be so deep that we wouldnt need any kind of bureaucracy. "

Implying that Planet takes the place of the bureaucracy, i.e., effectiveley takes the place of our government.

Bureaucracy is NOT government. It's just its tool. And as you can perfectly see in my phrase sentence, Planet doesnt replace the bureaucracy : this is the contact with Planet that replaces bureaucracy.

----

"while the rest would benefit of a total freedom of exchange, motivated only by the laws of supply and demand, not guaranteed by an evil fiction of an invisible hand keeping things in order, by guaranteed by the centaurian empathy herself : Planet would be this invisible hand."

I think that one pretty much speaks for itself; not only does it contradict itself by claiming that the only regulation would be that of supply and demand, and then going on to say that these forces ('the invisible hand') would be replaced by Planet, meaning that they're not governed by supply and demand at all, but it also implies, once again, that Planet will control this part of the economy as well.

Who supplies ? Planet. Who demands ? Us. We're not here talking of control from Planet, but of symbiose with Planet.

I think these statements make a mockery of Pan's claim that '"there's absolutely no control from Planet", particularly when the rest of the paragraph goes on to say:

"Planet, being the very source of our economy, would simply be the guarantee that free exchange benefits to us all -- therefore becoming sort of the invisible hand of free market."

See above, symbiose, not control.
---

With no explanation whatsoever of how it's suppsoed to achieve this without controlling the economy, and:

"For the same reasons, Planet would also separate what has to be nationalized -- industries that maintain us human social beings alive -- from what can be freely traded -- industries that emancipates us as human social beings."

So Planet determines what we need to keep us alive, and exercises control over that, and then determines what we need to be social beings, and exercises contol over that, too, in place of the market.

"Absolutely no control from Planet." Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Exactly. Planet, since we are living on it, determines what we need to be kept alive (survival economy), and she has total control of that. She could simply let fungus grow all around the surface of Chiron, and we'll starve to death.
On the other hand, what we need to be social beings -- emancipation economy, as stated above -- is determined also by Planet, because it is the part of our economy that is not survival economy.
See above about the control.

----

EDIT: and I believe I forgot this too:

"Planet is a living entity, as you surely know. She speaks to us, and since everything we use to build us, our society, is from her, is hers, she definetly has a place in how we governe our society. "

Well, just try to live in outter space, if you disagree.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic

quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Thats it, all he can do is to portray what he likes better than what I dislike and post Cedayon's statistics. We're here voting for the person who will carry the will of the people, not for a system.


Oh really? I seem to remember seeing this somewhere.

quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Go STEP-CCCP Alliance !
Refuse the dictaroship of the markets suppoerted by General Tacticus and abstain to vote for him !
Join the struggle to protect Planete's fragile ecosystem and support Drogue as a governor !


Do the words "Liar" and "Hypocrite" mean anything to you, Mr. Two-faced politician?

I am actually a four faced politician : Director of Social Engineering, Mayor of Pandemonium, Justice, and Founder of the CCCP. But as you probably noticed, one of this face never occured to the other : I never used any of the mandates that have been given to me by the people to protect me or to support my opinion : when the naming of Pandemonium was contested and Justice were called, I refused to participate to the case because I was involved. I never used any of the DoSE credits to fund a CCCP campaign, and neither have I tried to biase any poll of the DoSE with my CCCPians opinions.
I have the right to demonstrate my opinion as a political party founder (Go STEP-CCCP Alliance !) or as a director (We're here voting for the person who will carry the will of the people).

[GeneralTacticus]

Aaron:

Are you sure that what you propose is better than an so-called " Planet control".

Yes. I place rather more trust in human beings than in an alien mind which we do not understand and have no control over.

I don't mean to be rude, but what you are proposing yourself is Free Market .... which is nothing else than control of our civilization in the hand of a few coroporates.

And before you try to give any more "proofs" that it is not case, Read again the description of Free Market IN THE DATALINKS.

I have, and they make no reference to control of the faction by a few corporations. The closest thing to that ism "citizens rendered suddenyl poor by the actions of unscrupulous moguls may revolt against their energy-fattened masters.", which is an exercise in the obvious. Nowhere in the description does it say that such things will happen, it merely indicates what will happen if they do.

You'll see that the extra drones are not coming from the " right to complain, and freedom to become a drone" or things like that that your previous posts seems to imply but are clearly coming from proverty conditions, unemployements and poverty-related criminality.

Can you come up with a single argument to back that up? There are only two reasons why FM wil ever have more Drones than Planned or Green:

1) The lack of police to suppress them.

2) People being unhappy when we send troops overseas.

Neither of those two reasons have anything to do with poverty.

Besides, the fact that psych is first used to create Talents before eliminating all drone, shows clearly that a Free Market economy followed by a 40% ECO, 40% SCIENCE, 20 % PSYCH is not meant to help the citizens as a whole community, but rather to prevent rioting by giving wealth to a part of the community to the expanse of the other.

Is anyone actually worse off under FM, aside from the Vice Under-Secretary of State for the Reclamation of Missing Paperclips? Even if the extra wealth is distributed unevenly, isn't it better to have one person with $50 and one with $10 than two with $9?

Remember that Planet knows better than any of our most experienced scientists the natural phenomenoms that takes place on planet, how to avoid mindworms and tame them, how to more efficently find and extract all the riches hidden inside the fungus, etc .....

Do we have any evidence at all that Planet has any more understanding of how to do that than we do of our own bodies? We have no knowledge of how to tame white blood cells, after all, or extract resources from our nerves.

And if you're going to bring up the tame worm argument; a greater understanding of ow it works may permit that, but does it really matter if we can tame worms? What do we need them for, especially now that we're entering the era of Fusion Power?

Actually, I see more green as recognizing that the planet is sentient and, as such, should be considered as a citizen with rights to participate and help our decisions making

why should Planet take any more part in our decision making than w eshould take in it's? What makes you think it has any more understanding of us than we have of it?

especially considering that his unique point of view of the situation could be very usefull in the near future, especially with all the wars that could be happening very soon.

Why?

Herc:

Waste management and recycling will become increasingly important factors in costs and overheads as people come to realise not taking these into account might lead to even higher costs in the future.

Look at the cost (the run of 'natural' environmental disasters; drought, forest fires , floods,) to the old USA back on earth in not taking sufficient cognisance of climate change.

The alternative energy / renewal resource industry will grow. Increasingly new developments will require a sustainability assessment. All of these new directions require people to provide strategy, to design, to build, dismantle, transport etc.

Just some thoughts

Now that does sound interesting. I suppose we already have primitive forms of such things; garbage collectors, for example.

EDIT: Now that I read it again, I don't think I understood it right - if I've got it right this time, you're saying that in future, there will be muchmore economic importance attatched to sustainability, conservation and recycling, because ignoring these results in higher costs in the end. Am I right?

And just a side note on that - I'd imagine that the existence of a Longevity Vaccine would make people rather more likely to think of the future rather than the present; it will matter if there's no plant life left around a base in a hundred years time, for instance, because you'll still be there in a hundred years time.

Pande:

No. Does the governors obstruct the people's will, or do they carry it ? They carry it.

The governor is not the bureaucracy. A heavy bureaucracy will obstruct the people's will, simply because it takes so long to get anything done.

Not its not unfair. These people are not forced to worked, they choose to. A idle person is a sick person, because only work -- not any specific kind of work, but the work itself is what people naturally wish to do, as improving their direct or indirect environment. Thats how it has been since the beginning of civilization.

And what about lazy people? What about people who just want to free ride on everybody else's contributions?

Im not deifying Planet, Im simply saying that because she is the living source of our society, she has to be listened.

No, Planet isn't the source of our society.

Moreover, her advices are good advices.

What makes it's advice any more use to us than our advice would be to it? What gives it any more place in governing our society than we would have in regulating it's ecosystem?

Yes I do believe you'll be foolish enough to do that. Wouldnt you provatise farms, condensors, childrens creches, etc... ?

Farms - yes. Why shouldn't they be privatised?

Condensors - How can you privatise a condensor? It would be like privatising a waterfall.

Children's Creches - no. IF people want to build private ones, they can, but privatisation wouldn't make them run any better and they're too important to be hande dover to the market.

Life support - ditto CCs.

And what do you exactly intend to do with these unskilled laborers ?

Allow them to learn new skills, so they can contribute more.

Even if you generously skill them all, which I doubt you will,

Why? Don't you always maintain that the aim of capitalism is to make a profit? And isn't having workers that are more productive profitable?

that would just be the same : too many workers and not enough jobs.

Why? There are only a couple hundred thousand people in this faction, you realize. Certainly not too many to find jobs for.

Certainly we all are to be freed from our basic economic necessities -- get food, get rest, get air --- that can be done by energy allocation. But what about get knowledge, get love, etc... Thats not provided by energy allocation. Planet has nothing to do with that, Im just pointing the fact that energy allocation will just help our citizens to survive, not to emancipate them economically.

But emancipate them from what??? You can't free someone from a dependance on air.

Planet, being the very source of our economy,

Planet isn't the source of our economy. Planet is the fungus, and the fungus is a hinderance to our economy, not a source of it.

FM : One job for ten workers will prevent all of them to choose the job. So they HAVE TO work for underpaid wages that will simply make them able to survive. They have the right to choose, but if they refuse the given choice, they'll die -- not much a choice.

Or they'll find another job somewhere else.

Planned : One job for ten workers should be given to the most qualified worker amongst those willing. They do not work for money, and are thus free to choose or decline the bureaucrats offer.

So, the same as FM, except you don't need to be qualified at all, because you don't need to get a job? What do they work for, if not money?

And don't tell me they work ebcause they find it fun; not many people would consider filing paperclips fun, and I doubt many would want to do very dangerous work like mining on Mount Planet for fun if they didn't get anything out of it.

Green : Same as planned, except that the offers is not made by the bureaucrats, but defined by -- and I do not say the offer is made by, but defined by -- Planet.

If the offer is defined by Planet and delivered by someone else, what difference does it make? It's still from Planet - another example of control.

Seeing Planet is the source of all our economy -- she produces nutrients, minerals and energy

No, it doesn't. The only resources we get from it are the ones from the fungus, and we get very little that way.

and because we live on her environment, she also defines what maintains us alive or what kill us, whether you like it or not.

Once agian, no, it doesn't. We know what will keep us alive or kill us. Our biology does not change because Planet has decided that we need to breathe water. And if having the authority to detemrine what someone 'needs' isn't control, then I don't know what is.

Bureaucracy is NOT government. It's just its tool.

They are the same thing. If something takes over the bureaucracy, it takes over the government. I refer you to the example of stalin; he took over the Soviet bureaucracy, and in so doing, took over the Soviet state.

And as you can perfectly see in my phrase sentence, Planet doesnt replace the bureaucracy : this is the contact with Planet that replaces bureaucracy.

Care to explain the difference? If contact with Planet eliminates the need for bureaucracy, then obviously it must replace it. And if contact with Planet repalces bureaucracy, it would be logical that Planet itself has replaced the bureaucracy, no?

Who supplies ? Planet.

The minerals, the soil, and the sunlight would be there with or withotu the fungus.

Who demands ? Us. We're not here talking of control from Planet, but of symbiose with Planet.

What does Planet have that we want? Symbiosis depends on both parties benefitting from the arrangement. Symbiosis would gain us very little that we do not already have, and could have without such an arrangement.

Well, just try to live in outter space, if you disagree.

If life in outer space wasn't possible, none of us would be here. We came here via outer space, in case you've forgotten.

Exactly. Planet, since we are living on it, determines what we need to be kept alive (survival economy),

Which, as I have said, gives it total control over us. If you decide what someone 'needs', you control them. It's as simple as that.

and she has total control of that.

I will repeat my earlier statemnt: "Planet isn't God." It isn't omnipotent, or we would never have survived this far, because we would have been eaten by mindworms already.

She could simply let fungus grow all around the surface of Chiron, and we'll starve to death.

No, she couldn't. Planet can't simply make fungus grow at will, and it's not as if we're powerless agaisnt the fungus either.

On the other hand, what we need to be social beings -- emancipation economy, as stated above -- is determined also by Planet, because it is the part of our economy that is not survival economy.

Thank you for proving my point. Planet divides our economy in half, and then controls both halves.

[Pandemoniak]

GT, you should :
1) Try to understand the words that I type before you reply. Let me give you an advice, if you want to understand what I type :
2) Stop splitting the posts. You cut it in little slices and totally loose the meaning of the whole and this is really bothering me cause you're answering to one part at the time, ignoring all the comments in other parts that would answer and/or rebutt what you say.
As well, please specify who you quote when you dont quote the same person than before.

[GeneralTacticus]

If you want me to go after your point rather than what you actually said, fine - but post your damn point and be done with it, rather than expecting me to work it out on my own. I see no reason why addressing your posts one point at a time rather than all togather would cause me to miss the point, so give me something to rebut, rather than just saying 'you're missing the point' and then refusing to say what teh point actually is.

[Archaic]

Pan, you should
1) Stop contradicting yourself multipule times within one post. Let me give you some advice; If you expect people to understand you, you should..
2) Post points in nice, easy to address lists, instead of spreading one point all over a post and mixing it in with several others.
Also, stop making red herring nitpicks about his quoting format and actually offer an arguement.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Pan, you should
1) Stop contradicting yourself multipule times within one post.

Why ? Is it forbidden to have a dialectic way of thinking ?

Let me give you some advice; If you expect people to understand you, you should..
2) Post points in nice, easy to address lists, instead of spreading one point all over a post and mixing it in with several others.

Just because you're not smart enough to understand my posts doesnt mean they are ununderstandable. How come people like Drogue and AdamTG always understand my posts and you biase their meaning ? Is it linked to the fact that they're Empath and Talents while you're just a borehole ?

Also, stop making red herring nitpicks about his quoting format and actually offer an arguement.

Does it intends to say the fact his answer is ininteligible and doesnt apply to mine, though he intends to answer me, is a "nitpicked" detail ?

[Pandemoniak]

To GT, you'll have this post soon.

[Maniac]

Now chill down boys.

[GeneralTacticus]

Why ? Is it forbidden to have a dialectic way of thinking ?

If a 'dialectic way of thinking' consists of holding two contradictory opinions at the same time, then, yes, it is. Sounds like doublethink to me.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Just because you're not smart enough to understand my posts doesnt mean they are ununderstandable. How come people like Drogue and AdamTG always understand my posts and you biase their meaning ? Is it linked to the fact that they're Empath and Talents while you're just a borehole ?

Ooooooh. Them's fighting words Pan. And you *****ed so much about how I kept insulting you before too. Double standards and hypocrisy? I certainly think so.

Perhaps the difference Pan is that I'm not inheriently biased towards your opinions on the matters. Or perhaps it's because I'm a realist, not an idealist. Or perhaps it's because I have the academic background in economics and politics to know when you're talking bullshit.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Does it intends to say the fact his answer is ininteligible and doesnt apply to mine, though he intends to answer me, is a "nitpicked" detail ?

Indeed it is. Kind of seems double standards afterall when you spread one point all over a post and mixing it in with several others..

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
If a 'dialectic way of thinking' consists of holding two contradictory opinions at the same time, then, yes, it is. Sounds like doublethink to me.

Well I hold contradictory opinions about just about everything. Once you may realize there are no absolute truths and you can look at every problem from many perspectives with different truths and rights and wrongs as a consequence.

[Archaic]

I see a lot of word play there, but no real arguements. I hope you were being sarcastic Maniac.

Afterall, when you effectively say that under your system, "Planet will control our government" and "Planet will not control out government", you're certainly screwing up somewhere, aren't you?

Oh, and BTW.....there are most certainly absolute truths, and not just in the mathematical. Want some?

[GeneralTacticus]

How come people like Drogue and AdamTG always understand my posts

Can you point out a single instance of them indicating an understanding of your ramblings in this this thread? They haven't even posted in this thread since this argument started.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
I hope you were being sarcastic Maniac.

No I wasn't. Why should it be?

Afterall, when you effectively say that under your system, "Planet will control our government" and "Planet will not control out government", you're certainly screwing up somewhere, aren't you?

Well I haven't read any of the previous discussion, but I don't see why those statements would be necessarily wrong. At least as long as you add "from a certain perspective to them". For example, to make the Planet example a bit more terran, you could say "Our surroundings most probably determine human civilization" to indicate that the climate, the plant- and animallife have a tremendous influence on the culture & values of the people living in that place. The Egyptian civilization being determined by the Nile and desert for example. The native Americans giving great value to the animals surrounding them. The western view on nature being determined by the great technological power we can use on it. But you could just as well say "Human civilization most probably determines our surroundings or how we see them". Different perspectives but each with some truth in it.

Oh, and BTW.....there are most certainly absolute truths, and not just in the mathematical.

Mathematics is a system devised by humans and among other things used to explain the universe. It provides us a a map of the universe, not the universe itself. Other mathematical systems (the Euclidian-Descartesian isn't the only one you know...) give another view on the universe, and people using those will have other "absolute truths".

Want some?

Why sure. For now I keep to my statement: "Everything is probably relative.", even that statement itself.