I just had another idea. Self sufficiency.
The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots. And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden... Maybe a goat to keep the grass short, provide milk and maybe eventually meat... Ok, that sounds like a stretch, but what about self sufficiency over 20 to 100 people? Only really to share resources over enough land to have a range of cattle, fruit tree types. Each community could experiment with means of fair distribution. John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible. > > And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a > bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of > productivity. > > Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards > abundance. > The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around > participation in production. > > As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for > idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely. > > As such different models need to be discussed. > Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the > free money idea. > > So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts. > Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by > humanity for a very long time if ever. > > Unlimited free stuff, just take it. Might not produce waste if people > get over hoarding. Money might play little part in many peoples lives. > > Or > > An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs. > > Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse > unlimited free stuff. > > The thing that is limited is land. > > John > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Jed >> >> I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no >> gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you >> consider rights. >> >> I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some >> things--water as you indicate. Water production--mining is controlled in >> many states. In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water. It >> use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the >> general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production. >> >> I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots. Some >> are good and some are bad. The bad ones may be regulated in the future. >> Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence >> may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries >> lose their jobs. >> >> I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision >> the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the >> future is not mundane. I would guess we might agree on this point. >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >> >> H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Nothing is inherently safe. >>> Everything is potentially dangerous. >>> Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such >>> thing as "safe sex". >>> Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. >>> >> >> But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. >> Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. >> You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- >> whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That >> is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. >> >> - Jed >> >>
