TED Conversations

Mats Kaarbø

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Redefining Individuality

We all love our individuality. It is what shapes us as human beings and not some brainwashed robots, right? But how free and individual are we really? Can anybody, regardless of their situation, go to any local store and buy the food they need, rent an apartment that provides them with the human and sanitarian needs such as sleep, a shower to clean themselves and a place to cook their food or perhaps book a flight to India the next morning that would enrich their life personally and socially purely out of the enjoyment of visiting and exploring other cultures and places? No. You are only as free as your purchasing power. That means from the day you are born you are dependent on other people to take care of you and provide you with the necessities of life until you are old enough to attend school (assuming it is free), memorize the information that will hopefully grant you with a diploma and that would hopefully make you able to compete with many others to a job that will likely rob your personal freedom to express your individual desires to take on your own projects, just so you make enough money to survive. Is this truly individuality?

Now, what if we made a society where we utilized science and technology to intelligently manage and allocate our resources to meet the needs of all human beings on the planet by claiming all of Earths resources as the common heritage of all mankind. Where we collectively would utilize technology to free mankind (through automation of jobs and labor) in order for every human being to be able to reach their fullest potential personally, socially and culturally. That sounds like a society that cherishes the individual, right?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +2
    Nov 10 2012: When the economy fails, the Venus Project will have room to voice its ideas.
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2012: which is unfortunate. in time of trouble, the stupidest ideas spread like wildfire. see marxism and nazism a century ago.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: What is Venus Project?

        But, please, do not redirect me to any website, I do not have time for this. Just say it plain and simple, twitter style.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: don't quote me on that, but something like:

          we need to hand over all production to machines. including the organization of production. supercomputers would decide what to produce, how to produce, what to produce from, how and where to distribute. and we humans would not have to work or pay for goods. there would be no money, and everyone could consume as he sees fit.
        • Nov 10 2012: It is impossible to describe The Venus Project in just a couple of sentences or less. And one cannot judge an organization from a sentence. I suggest you to check out their website, when you get time.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2012: Just because a project works on Venus why does that mean it will work here?
        • thumb

          Gail . 50+

          • +1
          Nov 11 2012: Kriszian Pinter has distorted the Venus Project to the point where it no longer makes sense.

          It is based on the notion that when automation takes over the jobs that no human really wants, and manages our resources, that we will be free to contribute our talents to our society in a moneyless soceity.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2012: Why is it not called The Cuba Project?
        • Nov 10 2012: Krisztián's description of The Venus Project was slightly off. They do advocate automating jobs and labor that isn't desirable for humans thus liberating humans to focus on important and desirable stuff and they do suggest that if we create abundance with automation and the value of sharing all of Earths resources, we could move beyond the monetary system. However, 'supercomputers' do not make any decisions. Here is where Krisztián is off in his description. The fact is that _nobody_ makes any decision in a resource based economy, not even the 'supercomputers' he is referring to. Instead we _arrive_ at decisions with the help of a correlation center (what he call supercomputers) that _merely_ keeps track on how much resources we have and how much we can use in order to maintain sustainable and abundance. That is all. The correlation center would never make any decision on behalf of humans. That wouldn't make any sense.

          We have to learn how scientists arrive at decisions. Once you use the scientific method, it doesn't mean that your decisions will be perfect. They'll be far more accurate than just opinions.
      • Nov 10 2012: You are slightly off, Krisztián. The fact is that _nobody_ makes any decision in a resource based economy, not even the 'supercomputers' you are referring to. Instead we _arrive_ at decisions with the help of a correlation center (what you call supercomputers) that _merely_ keeps track on how much resources we have and how much we can use in order to maintain sustainable and abundance. That is all. It would never make any decision on behalf of humans. That wouldn't make any sense.
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2012: That does not seem like a system I would want to be a part of. It seems so wasteful of human potential to decide that is the stopping place of our evolution. We must learn as a society to rise above mindless consumption. No amount of technology will do that for us. If we must create machines to regulate our waste and misuse of resources, the only thing that has evolved or progressed is the technology. All we'd have done is create a mechanical nanny. I'm sorry if it sounds crass, I don't mean it to be, but I think that humanity can be so much better than that, and creativity is a better tool than any mechanical device.
      • Nov 11 2012: Krisztián's description of The Venus Project was slightly off. They do advocate automating jobs and labor that isn't desirable for humans thus liberating humans to focus on important and desirable stuff and they do suggest that if we create abundance with automation and the value of sharing all of Earths resources, we could move beyond the monetary system. However, 'supercomputers' do not make any decisions. Here is where Krisztián is off in his description. The fact is that _nobody_ makes any decision in a resource based economy, not even the 'supercomputers' he is referring to. Instead we _arrive_ at decisions with the help of a correlation center (what he call supercomputers) that _merely_ keeps track on how much resources we have and how much we can use in order to maintain sustainable and abundance. That is all. The correlation center would never make any decisions on behalf of humans. That wouldn't make any sense.

        We have to learn how scientists arrive at decisions. Once you use the scientific method, it doesn't mean that your decisions will be perfect. They'll be far more accurate than just opinions.
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2012: The Venus Project does not negate the value of which a monetary system can provide. EDITED: Fresco believes it is inherently unequal. The majority of those in the Project, although desire no money, are not naive enough to see it going away even if the Project is picked up on a large scale. For Fresco's dream to come true, the fact of the matter is, the entire world would have to agree at the same time and sacrifice at the same time - this is not likely and is hopeless thinking.

      What both (Fresco and his V.P followers) note, is that the current system is corrupted and evil, because money is the difference between someone eating and surviving.

      Upon establishing a system where basic needs are given as a human right (which can be created by use of technological progressions) - money systems will surely be needed in order for an individual to achieve their desires or continual requirements of improving themselves further. Think Star Trek - The Federation is designed for humanitarianism and spreading those values to other worlds by means of understanding and sharing, in order to explore the unknown universe. Oh yes... This science fictional dream is apparently ignorant and destructive to some, because of the socialistic attitudes that are required...

      This is the mark Kris and many miss - thinking the situation is cut or dry. Money or no money.

      Obviously we need a trading system always, but no system should exist that entails a holocaust of children dying annually, globally. No amount of argument can suggest a system that would prevent the above is stupid, unless the person is in fact ignorant themselves of the entirety of the idea - which is all V.P claims; ideology.
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Nov 13 2012: Having read the book, I can say that Jacques looks forward to a moneyless society (not even barter). Think Star Trek. It evolved beyond the need for money. The dream is not socialistic. It is egalitarian. We get to an egalitarian society only by having a society of equals, and money is inherently unequal. We simply don't need it.
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2012: We will always have bartering systems and methods of trade. To believe we no longer will require them is a dream. Star Trek does have a money system (it just doesn't work like ours today), they just don't make money the difference between living and dying or being treated differently in social class.

          A truly equal world.. That is too idealistic and ultimately useless to think about. However, at the same time we should look into what would be the first steps into such a world - in order to make this one better.

          Fresco, like many, is selling an image - he is a philosopher; needs to sell the thoughts he had lived his life investing in - never would I believe he is foolish enough to believe money will be forgotten, even if his project would be picked up by the world tomorrow. There are many futurist/transhumanist philosophers and almost none believe in no monetary systems, at least for a very long time.

          Money is not the problem, and is not innately what separates or creates inequality. It is a tool. Science, philosophy, religion, art.... these things are more likely to separate cultures and people than money.

          The problem is, money further the divides when money is not being considered as a real primary factor in the modern world. When people in capitalist countries are not interested in where their systems monetary exchanges, imports and exports are going... Then there is the room for the money movements to be controlled by those who do understand the above.

          There is no one problem with this world. Suggesting money is the root of all evil merely dismisses what really is; ignorance. With an education system that was globalized, multicultural and virtuous (taught manners) - money wouldn't be an issue; people would just realize life is worth far more than a fancy car.

          As an American, I am witnessing our Golden Age. In history there is nothing after this age...

          Money may blind efforts, but it is only a tool. Our thoughts are to blame, not a tool for trade.
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • +1
        Nov 13 2012: In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Dark Frontier", a "New World Economy" began to take hold on Earth and throughout the Federation in the late 22nd century, and eventually made money obsolete.

        Just because you cannot envision a moneyless society does not mean that a moneyless society is not viable. There have been moneyless societies in the past. They were destroyed with the introduction of ownership of land as well as trade rather than gifts.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.