Nathanael Dinwiddie

Lawrence, KS, United States

Someone is shy

Edit profile

Nathanael hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Nathanael Dinwiddie
Posted over 1 year ago
What are any quarrels regarding the remodeling of civilization on Earth with ideas from The Venus Project?
Time will tell. We currently have some companies and corporations that are up to 150 years old. And once they build up a high enough capital, it can be very difficult to make a dent in their powerhold over the market, just as it can be difficult to wipe out a nation. Some become so big, it seems no other entity can spring up and replace them, because these corporations have the capital to recover in time to prevent their demise. Amazingly, many companies are more wealthy than most nations.
Noface
Nathanael Dinwiddie
Posted over 1 year ago
What are any quarrels regarding the remodeling of civilization on Earth with ideas from The Venus Project?
It does appear true that certain features attributable to free markets can be pinned down and said to be responsible for improvements. But it is more complicated than that. If you are referring to the past, where regulation was very minimal, safety was also very minimal, resulting in the loss of lives of many immigrants and even children. If the unregulated markets of the past produced wealth, it was at the expense of many lives and the environment. But irregardless of that claim, markets in America have always been under government and therefore affected in some way. So even in historical examples, we can't say it was pure free market. As for the present, the market would fall apart without government assistance, whether it be bailouts, grants, subsidies, or development incentives. All corporations today benefit from welfare. Sure, you can blame government regulation for the instability. But even without government, markets will oscillate with catastrophic results. And some say the function of government is sometimes to ease the momentum of such economic oscillations. Whether regulation has slowed down improvement is difficult to determine. In some cases it may have, but in some cases it may have been catalyst. In addition, consider the fact that many of the technologies we have today were funded by government, developed by the government itself then released to enterprise (such as the internet) or developed by external corporations who reap the profits following its development and never pay back the public fund. Keep in mind I am not in defense of government, nor free markets. I recognize both as necessary for the realization of an RBE. The market being a complex of irrational forces leading no where in particular, and the government being a rational force attempting to steer the market in a humane direction. But both the government and the market have to realize the potentials for an RBE.
Noface
Nathanael Dinwiddie
Posted over 1 year ago
What are any quarrels regarding the remodeling of civilization on Earth with ideas from The Venus Project?
Let's face it. The market isn't free. So what will a free market produce without government regulation? That is only subject of conjecture. The fact is, it isn't the free market that has improved living standards. Living standards have been improved by markets subject to chaotic fluctuation of multi-national regulation policies that are both obeyed and violated. It is moreso government regulated markets that have produced abundance and comfort. Therefore we have to take into account a multiplicity of additional factors when concluding the source of social improvement. Not simply a "free" market. The actual socioeconomic classification of our current system will not be realized until the people of the future look upon us. And the factors involved in contributing to higher living standards are so multitudinous and interdependent, no human analysis will likely determine the causal chain. Anyway, a resource-based economy, theoretically, is supposed to be what a free market (or any other system that successfully bolsters production) leads to. Eventually a free market will produce such an abundance, the price mechanism will not be needed to account for most things. With computerized accounting this is especially possible. However, the vested interest of established institutions threatens the realization of this unprecedented human liberation. They will deliberately maintain scarcity to perpetuate the use of the price mechanism to perpetuate their own position of power as a reaction of self preservation. Just know, an RBE is no antagonist to this system. It is the offspring of this system. But unless we realize it, and reorganize our institutions and governmental strictures, we will remain oblivious to the new possibilities, stumble forth into an foggy future, and find ourselves stupidly exhausted and defeated just as a man who is too stupid to make the right investments.
Noface
Nathanael Dinwiddie
Posted over 2 years ago
If you could make a wish on behalf of The City 2.0, what would it be?
The point is that a sociocybernated resource-based economy is as inevitable to our era as automation was inevitable to the medieval era. It is as inevitable as the human body merging with technology. It will evolve as naturally as a bee hive. Economic forces, human need, and planetary constrictions will force it into place. Natural law is responsible for this evolution. The bee hive was forced into existence by natural law; so too will it force new infrastructures in cities and social arrangements. However, there is a point of no return, and there are factors that may interfere with this evolution (natural disaster or nuclear war). Of course technology is the most radical variable and is rendering the future of material objects and their function ever more unpredictable. In contrast, the relationship between humans and technology has evolved in a relatively stable and predictable way. Our technology has changed, and its change is difficult to predict, but our relationship to it has not changed. Fresco's extrapolations are concerned with this relationship and operate on its basis. Fresco is concerned with the larger issue of human evolution of which technology is a part. Such extrapolations require a focus on certain factors that many forcasters severely neglect. Some say it is inevitable that humans will merge with machines, but that is as far as they go. They don't concern themselves with what is inevitable for society.
Noface
Nathanael Dinwiddie
Posted over 2 years ago
If you could make a wish on behalf of The City 2.0, what would it be?
Regarding your response above. Indeed, extrapolating the future is difficult. Some have succeeded in that past. Some haven't. The key is recognizing basic axioms and patterns and understanding how they affect each other. -We recognize that humans have a set of absolute needs -If you recognize that humans have certain needs, you can delineate a range of reactions when these needs go unfulfilled. -We can see one reaction in the world today, that citizens will uprise when their needs go unfulfilled -Likewise, you can recognize that self-preservation is virtually a law of life, and that this holds true for institutions as well, beings individual self-preservation is dependent upon the institution. Self-preservation is a primary cause for uprisings. -You can recognize that in the past, uprising people were eventually pacified when economic conditions returned to a comfort zone. But can such a return continue? -You can recognize that the population growth rate cannot be sustained. -You can recognize that the earth has finite resources -You can recognize, that automation is a relentless trend in human evolution. B/c it is more efficient, humans will automate wherever possible, as soon as possible What lays ahead is quite obvious. It is a threat that no good reason or good prudence could deny. (To think that the market can solve it requires as much faith as you may accuse me of having). We are barreling forward toward a crisis: technological unemployment for an exponentially growing population. That is the end of capitalism and the beginning of something new. How will institutions deal with this? The answer: Sociocyberneering in a global resource-based economy. It will be the most efficient way to administer human needs. Society is a mechanism and someday it will be managed like a mechanism.
Noface
Nathanael Dinwiddie
Posted over 2 years ago
If you could make a wish on behalf of The City 2.0, what would it be?
It seems while the followers of the Venus Project do well in repeating the phrases and promises of the Venus Project, they don't understand its doctrine in its entirety. Neither does Vlastone. There is a very important conclusion upon which much of VP's doctrine is built. The conclusion is that a sociocybernated scenario is INEVITABLE for society. Why? Because it is the most efficient economic arrangement conceivable at this time. As the market tends to inevitably push for greater efficiency, it places society on an inexorable path toward a particular organization. This organization will be more controlled than the organization we have today. This process of reorganization is not only caused ultimately by economic forces but forces of social evolution as well. This is THE MARCH OF EVENTS that is made inevitable by the deep structure of technological and sociological co-evolution. This reorganization will be a reaction to the civil unrest generated by a growing world population running short on resources, overloading the carrying capacity of the earth. At this point you can expect top-down control programs descending upon the populations from desperate governments. Free markets can't operate in a world that has become too desperate to permit the exercise of past freedoms. Governments will have to install a planned and controlled sociocybernated system by necessity. They will call upon scientists/technicians to engineer this program. There would be no other way of managing societies under such desperate conditions. Solutions for the crisis from the market would be too slow. In sum, such an inevitable organization manifests in two ways: 1. something like a technocratic fascist tyranny or a technocratic state controlled military dictatorship, or 2. if forward thinking people work together with large investors (on the scale of Dubai), then we can shortcut to the new organization before governments are forced to take coercive action. Fresco tries for the latter.