James, the solar system has to be recognized for many reasons and I have heard nobody trying to exclude that. We can agree that the resources are somewhat limited today. However, that is merely a question of that we have failed to share to open up for the less fortunate to take part of the surplus. You say it is utopia and I can agree with that as well. I have said many times here at Vortex that progress in today's world means optimum utilizing of the resources and that means in my opinion to take away all organizations (public and private ) that does not have any other advantage but size, which is of zero value today. Flexibility, openness and a positive attitude to the endless possibilities we can see at the horizon. I think LENR is a natural development and that it will be the result of collaboration between people willing to provide their knowledge and expertise to a group. That group could be Vortex if we want. The discussion of who has more experience is rather pathetic. Reality is that of my fifty years in business, I would easily forgo and forget 50% of my experience for another 25 years of participating in this very exiting era. That goes for both LENR and a society with less prestige and more openness. I have no experience of solar centric systems except for what that the sun obviously is the center for us in regfards to most of what we do and can do.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of > limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first > order unlimited "pie" but to second order, even it is limited. > > Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the > biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely > rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, > you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not > as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. > > You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of > doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the > biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't > try to play "more cornucopian than thou" with me. > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics >> of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic >> policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of >> unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are >> doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. >> The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially >> restricting its growth. >> >> >> >> This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because >> they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people >> are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of >> their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they >> think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on >> and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is >> rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a >> slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he >> slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice >> does he fix the swing. >> >> >> >> In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the >> limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will >> contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no >> limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most >> would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and >> you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie >> and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we >> need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that >> will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just >> causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in >> the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. >> Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the >> money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s >> growth? >> >> >> >> It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of >> progress today. >> >> >> >> Ransom >> >> >> >> *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >> >> >> >> Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle >> artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of >> accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a >> little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing "an >> automobile is coming". We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress >> even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a >> new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions >> and reap the benefits. >> >> I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front >> of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. >> As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it >> and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. >> >> We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we >> can ask them to give us something back. >> >> We can share . >> >> I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and >> no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. >> >> I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and >> provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as >> workforce do that just for the paycheck. >> >> I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to >> reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many >> years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt >> there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those >> who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation >> not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. >> >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> >> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >> >> [email protected] >> +1 916 436 1899 >> >> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >> >> >> >> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly >> quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see >> hope at least in the long term. >> >> In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to >> enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we >> may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it >> will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, >> might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need >> do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes >> can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have >> believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a >> TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The >> changes have been remarkable and swift. >> >> I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely >> require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to >> our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not >> to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take >> many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of >> employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will >> become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be >> greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be >> much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a >> guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. >> >> As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future will >> be bright. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Zell <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am >> Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >> >> In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. >> The >> >> percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in >> >> labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish >> much >> >> as many ex-auto workers can tell you. >> >> >> >> I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once >> >> jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical >> >> change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade >> >> deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these >> export >> >> industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent >> increase in >> >> part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. >> >> >> >> Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as >> the >> >> US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic >> >> upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Craig Haynie [mailto:[email protected] >> <[email protected]?>] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:34 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >> >> >> >> You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but >> these >> >> sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of >> industry. >> >> Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any >> >> opposition to this solution "does not make sense." But you wouldn't try to >> solve >> >> any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose >> >> science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your >> >> solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there >> is no >> >> way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could >> opt-out. I >> >> sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask >> that >> >> you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, >> and >> >> your proposed solution. >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/09/2014 06:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: >> >> > I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent >> >> > unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is >> >> > one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a >> >> > large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the >> >> > results are fascinating. >> >> > Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be >> >> > seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major >> >> > difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does >> >> > not make sense. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for linking the video. >> >> > >> >> > Adrian Ashfield >> >> >> >> >> > >
