Revision as of 09:19, 24 October 2013

= allocating resources as a utility, without money

URL = http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm

Description

1. Excerpt copied (and edited) from the Venus Project site:

"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of any system of debt or servitude like money, credits or barter. All resources become the common heritage of all people[1], not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources[2] through monetary methods[3] is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources[4]. Money[5] is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such." (http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm)

2.

"when futurists refer to ‘resource based economics’ today, in a post-industrial context, they’re usually talking about systems where global resources are managed rather like municipal utilities and as a result currencies become redundant. No one ‘owns’ water. Communities create facilities for its collection and distribution as a public utility. Imagine that all resources and many commodities were treated this same way and you have part of the picture of what a resource based economy means. Such systems are anticipated to evolve from global digital networked market systems that become ‘commoditized’ by the trends in decentralization of production. In other words, because production is local, markets stop trading in finished products and labor and start dealing in a broad spectrum of commodities in increasingly fractionalized unit volumes evolving toward just the Periodic Table plus energy. Soon they become so efficient -as commodities markets tend to if left to their own devices- that they come to ‘know’ in an algorithmic sense the full extent of world resources and demand and their respective cycles and ‘bandwidth’, eliminate currency as a metric of market values by allowing resource values to be indexed relative to each other, and eliminate profit and speculation by compelling capitulation (the tendency of participants in a market to conform collectively to its trends) and driving the market toward equilibrium. At this point the system stops being a market for resources and commodities and becomes an Internet (an open-Internet) for them instead, compelling the relinquishing of individual control of resources and the management of their exploitation to the system itself as a world utility driven by demand. The result is a money-less society where all resources are free, within reason, and distributed automatically in response to demand. This is what futurist Jacque Fresco has dubbed Cybernation; world resources managed as a global societal commons by a demand-driven computer-based world utility." (http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/eric-hunting-on-post-industrial-resource-based-economic-systems-with-social-credit/2008/10/22)

Interview

1

1. Interview of Stephanie Smith, founder of the We Commune software project, by Allison Arieff of Shareable magazine [6]:

Interview:

“AA: Explain the idea of the Third Economy.

SS: The Third Economy is a group-based resource-sharing economy. I coined the term in order to give shape to the informal exchanges that are beginning to happen as a result of the failures of the first (cash) and second (credit) economies. Economies are constructs (Visa created/implemented the credit economy with the help of Madison Avenue ‘Mad Men’ about 50 years ago).

I think it’s time to work together to build a new one; one with a different set of underlying values that are more in tune with our times, and one that is built from the bottom up by people who have intimate knowledge of, and experience with, the needs and desires of their local communities.

Allison Arieff: I think it’s so important to develop online strategies that extend to offline. Tell us about the tools you’re creating, and how they might start to take shape on the street.

Stephanie Smith: The first tools we’ll launch over the next six months or so include a Facebook app that helps users post and manage a “share,” barter or group barter (i.e., a dog walking club or childcare co-op), and a digital bulletin board tool that people working in cafes and co-working environments can use to post real-time resource-sharing opportunities.

A third tool we’re working on is a surplus re-allocation tool designed for urban districts that allows anyone to create a free shelf, box, table, or room, and add it to a map so that others can find and use it; they can take something, leave something, or both.

AA: There’s a lot of this share/trade/barter stuff happening now, especially in more progressive cities like Portland and San Francisco. Is there hope for this sort of momentum elsewhere?

SS: I’m always excited when progressive people in urban centers pioneer new approaches. We’re watching, participating and learning from many of these pioneers, especially on the west coast. What’s interesting about the Third Economy, however, is that it’s happening informally across America, in cities, suburbs and rural areas, as people confront our new economic reality. For instance, the numerous childcare co-ops and wholesale buying clubs that are started by average folks every day to get some of their economic needs met in a group format.

The best way to build on this momentum, both among pioneers in progressive urban centers, and by average people across America, is to make these informal resource-sharing behaviors one notch more formal. Give them a name – Third Economy, and let people know that when they share resources as a group in order to save money and build deeper community, they’re actually participating in a structured, economic system that has value and meaning.” (http://shareable.net/blog/the-third-economy-allison-arieff-talks-with-stephanie-smith)

2

Singularity Utopia (SU) of Singularity-2045.org interviewed by René K. Müller (RKM) of OccupyConcepts.org on October 10-18, 2012.

* How do you define RBE and how do you think it differs from Post-Scarcity?

RKM: Take a look at Resource-based Economy where I summarized some of the key issues, and also formulated the criticism.

SU: This is where I disagree strongly with RBE advocates, when they say we already have enough resources. They say scarcity is merely a distribution/greed issue. While I fully recognise the 1% make things a lot worse for the majority, compared to how things could be, I am sure, looking at all factors, that we cannot have Post-Scarcity merely by having better distribution; thus things will not be free with better distribution based on our current technology.

On the issue of how, it is a simple issue comparable to how you breathe. How do you breathe? You simply suck air into your lungs; you never worry about a scarcity of air because it is all around us, it is not scarce.

How would people gain access to free computers in a Post-Scarcity situation? It would be similar to breathing air. You would simply compute via the super-abundance of computers all around you. Intel have stated (via their resident futurist Brian David Johnson) that meaningful computation (the chip size) will approach zero size in 2020, which means you could potentially have cheap microscopic computers in clothes, cups, paint, anything.

Recently I read about the ability to print solar cells. Imagine how 3D printing will have developed 20 or 30 years from now, we will be able to print anything, for example imagine being able to print powerful computers, or imagine printers that can deconstruct printed objects. So if computer chips are zero size by 2020, what about 2030, or 2040? What will evolved AI be capable of 30 years from now?

Look at various aspects of technology then project them 30 years into the future and that is the how.

Today I looked at pay-as-you-go cell phones in the supermarket and the cheapest one was only 14 US$, which is cheaper than 10 years ago and the technology in it is incredibly sophisticated compared to 10 years ago. You can also buy a corded landline handset for only $3.45. In another ten years companies will possibly give cell phones away or perhaps they will cost $2; or perhaps we must wait 20 or 30 years before there is such a drop in price, but the sure thing is that by 2045 everything will be free.

* RKM: What is the difference between having sufficient for all and Post-scarcity? What is free? When is something free for you?

SU: The difference between "sufficient for all" and Post-Scarcity is that the "sufficient for all" idea would or could entail rationing, there would likely be strict management of scarce resources to entail the sufficiency. Sufficient for all would or could entail mere provision of basic needs such as food and shelter, whereas Post-Scarcity entails no management or rationing, there is no need to regulate scarce resources, there are no limits in a Post-Scarcity situation.

“Sufficient for all” is imprecise because it could apply to a very wide variety of situations depending on how you define sufficient. For example the amount of platinum per individual could easily have a differing level of sufficiency for each person. A sufficient amount of cake per person is a differing measurement for each person similar to a sufficient amount of computing power. I am sure many millionaires think they have insufficient funds, which is why they are so desperate to earn more money; whereas many poor people might opt for eternal retirement if they had only 1 million in currency.

I doubt you could ever have a situation where everything is free if the resources are scarce. If there is very effective management of scarcity to entail a "sufficient for all" scenario, you will nevertheless have prices despite the sufficiency. Something is free in the monetary sense when it has no price, and there will always be price in a scarcity situation because human greed, the fear of scarcity, cannot be completely eliminated during a scarcity situation. " (http://occupyconcepts.org/Blog/1350544800/Post_Scarcity_Management_of_Resources)

Discussion

The RBE definition by the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement

Comment By Robin of ShareWiki:

"In a Resource-Based Economy, people do not make decisions; they arrive at them through the use of advanced technological tools that incorporate The Scientific Method. There is no ‘Republican’ or ‘Liberal’ way to design an airplane… so why do we use these outdated worldviews in society today? When we recognize that society is a technological invention, with its component variables really no different than the component variables of an airplane, we then see that our orientation towards so called “government” should be purely scientific. ‘Politics’ is now outdated, for its processes are largely subjective and without scientific reference. Politics is an outgrowth of the monetary system and scarcity. We now must work towards a new, emerging paradigm – moving from a period where the central problem was the sharing of scarcity, to the problem now being one of creating and distributing abundance." (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/The%2520Zeitgeist%2520Movement.pdf page 58 )

Robin replies on what this really means:

1. All Hail to "The Scientific Method." Science is objective! There are no values! Everything our machines say is Truth. Who are you to disagree? You can't disagree with the Truth! 2. Society is NOT a technical construction as what they argue, but instead a social construction. Basic science. 3. Politics is about who gets what when and how. It is about the distribution of power. States are the monopolization of power. These are two different things. Venus wants the state by abolishing politics.

Marc Replies to Robin:

1. Our brains use Scientific Method to naturally evaluate everything that we experience. We experience symbiotic relations, and thus it is our truth. What makes us relate to one another is fact that we all agree on. If I told you "I saw a ghost," you must see if first before you can confirm it fact. If a group of people claimed the same thing, another skeptical group must confirm amongst each other in order to reach two agreeing parties. It is not until the "ghost" is accepted by all, does it exist as a truth. From our ancestors to our society today, we evaluated almost everything we can be exposed to, except the functionality of our current monetary system which is currently under skeptical surveillance. We use our most-current and updated knowledge, just like science, so that we do not repeat the same mistakes or dis-beliefs. This function only applies to the individual; it is not a social function yet because it must be applied by all as truth or fact.

2. Society IS in fact a technical invention. Every means to every succeeding society grew with technology, (which can be considered to be man-power for ancient-times), and all new technology introduced overtime, made it's previous version obsolete. This point is simple. We walk on paved roads and sidewalks, we swing on swing sets or whirl through roller coasters, we cram into elevators, or we chill out a Star Bucks. All the while we are discussing the world around us, coffee in hand (how did that get there? You coffee drinkers you..), discussing our past, daily, or future objectives. All things provided to us (i.e. technology itself) creates the conversations and culture of our society. Making tie-dye shirts is not a form of social construction, it is a technical invention allowing us to design shirts that appeal to a rebellious generation rebelling about our technical set-up. They just happen to wear the shirts because technology provided it.

3. Politics have no relevance anymore. Pointing at people for power is not only corrupt as favorable and unfair, but also it completely lacks a basis for all its decisions. Politics operate like this: noticing a problem, and then addressing it with some cover-up agenda, electing favorable people who are obviously distracted in their intent by monetary reward. They do not evaluate the foundational causes of the worlds problems, and they have no interest even in finding out ways that we could design our problems out. Their job is to maintain the current world order, protecting themselves and their jobs for the remainder of their lives.

Here's an ironic question: Don't you think it's time we stop listening to old white guys opinions, and start evaluating our lives and the natural function of the earth more intelligently? If design can give us global positioning, modern computing, wireless internet, abundant energy sources, and automated clean living spaces.. think what else it could provide us if the process to building new technologies was FREE!

More Information

See how it is related to Social Credit Systems

Key resources

Description of resource based economy at the Venus Project site: http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
The Venus Project
RBE Foundation
The Zeitgeist Movement

References

Resource-Based Economy: Difference between revisions