all 21 comments

[–]muellermeierschulz 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree. 1. Our purpose is reproduction. 2. Creating and sharing WAS possible in communities with subsistence farming and not more then 150 people (Dunbar's number). That is because people know each other in small communities good enough that social shaming prevents enough from cheating. Beyond Dunbar's number are rules, leadership, money, taxes, (police-)force and all the other stuff needed.

[–]Durlo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. The quote is rather stupid but it echoes the feeling of people who are too used to the comfort of developed civilizations and do not realize the cons of living in a more wild state.

[–]ctvzbuxr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You want rules or taxes? Can't have both.

[–]EndlessSunflowers[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"It's time to evolve, man. That's why we're troubled. You know why our institutions are failing us, the church, the state, everything's failing ... its because they're no longer relevant. We're supposed to keep evolving." Bill Hicks

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

if he was around now they he would be canceled so hard. they would figure out a way me too' him or some other shit.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

lmao I wanted to watch few of his bit and second top google result after his wiki

'Bill Hicks was a bit misogynist' – young comics reassess the standup legend

[–]Devidose 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The man is/was a fucking legend and some of the best comedy I've ever watched along with George Carlin, and many others who I'm just now realising are all dead...

Hm, all my favourite comics are dead. Go figure.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Lately, I have been thinking about how the only way to fix society's problems is to change the way money works. We already have engines that run on water, but it was shelved because it would seriously threaten Big Oil. We have light bulbs that never burn out, but they will never be produced because they can't make money long-term. Nowadays, most products have deliberately designed functional obsolescence to ensure that we keep buying said product. I have no answers about what a new money system would look like, but there has to be a way to distribute money as a reward for making things that will make the world a better place instead of our current system, which rewards us for making things that pollute, fill up our landfills, encourage corruption and exploitation, etc.

[–]fred_red_beans 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Money is just a placeholder for trust between people. It's a blind trust system, as in you give someone your money (time, labor, resources) and you don't know what they may do with it. If we were to not use money, we would have to go through the process of communicating and learning to trust each other rather than just isolating in our respective homes. cars. jobs etc; it would not be a small process. This blind trust was supposed to be one of the "features" of using a currency system, but has rather just enabled us to be controlled by those who control the monetary system.

At least libertarians, while still advocating for the tokenized currency system, believe in a free market where individuals can transact freely with each other without having to pay homage to "the owners" through taxes etc.

[–]christine_grab 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know much about libertarianism, but I thought it was all about private ownership and paying money to the owners? The primary motive is still profit, right? It's the profit motive that I think is broken; that people will not make things that are good for the world if there is no profit in it for them.

[–]muellermeierschulz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Governments accept taxes only in the official currency. Therefore the currency has not naturally evolved. "Free markets" is an oxymoron. There has to be a "power" to make sure that private contracts will be kept. If there is no punishment for cheating - then there is no market. And this "power" has to be paid - with taxes. No market without government / state.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This hinges on the premise that there needs to be an authority that enforces and punishes, which I disagree with.

When someone abuses the trust given to them, then that trust/power could be modified or removed by the individuals who gave them their trust in the first place. Punishment in of itself does not ensure further trust, quite the contrary as exhibited by the US "corrections" system which actually corrects nothing. I do believe it's important to have a police force and a way to take responsibility for common needs, but instead of that responsibility being taken by a few who are elected or are on boards or are appointed to positions, I think we would be better off if everyone were to take a more active role in serving those needs. This certainly would take much more time, effort, communication, and trust and would be highly inefficient by a monetary cost means, but I think the rewards would be much higher as the people themselves would be enriched by taking the responsibility for themselves rather than looking to governments, judges, or corporations to do it for them. Perhaps I'm painting an utopian anarchistic picture, but I don't think this scenario is impossible.

It could be argued that it's human nature to shit on each other, but I don't think so. I think the majority of people actually care about one another. The military has boot camps in order to train people and get them used to the idea of killing another human being. People more often than not come together in times of need. It is the caring aspect of people that is used to manipulate them and evoke emotional responses.

I see humanity as currently in a conundrum in which it's education, activities, and world view, which are guided by the economic system, actually contrast with their core base values. The worldview is maintained by the media, education system, and economic system - everything they are taught to care about. Most are just not able to look in the mirror and challenge their own belief system, which would also be necessary in order to do what I am describing.

Not probable anytime in the near future - but I think possible.

[–]muellermeierschulz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It could be argued that it's human nature to shit on each other, but I don't think so. I think the majority of people actually care about one another. I agree with that. But, if one or two in hundred don't care - can be enough to let everything go to waste.

[–]fred_red_beans 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with that. But, if one or two in hundred don't care - can be enough to let everything go to waste.

Right, and we shouldn't lend those one or two in one hundred our trust and have them in positions of power. I think the only way to really check that power is by spreading it out over as many individuals as possible. But, again those individuals would have to invest themselves and take responsibility instead of abdicating it to those few in power.

[–]muellermeierschulz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm pretty sure, the Engines-that-run-on-water-thing is a hoax. Because every manager who would be involved in the conspiracy could instead build THE BIGGEST COMPANY THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN instead of being just a rich but unknown manager.
The money system is the pressing force - for good and bad. Companies must compensate 100 % for every environment usage. Head the force into the right direction.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't have a lot of time to look right for the proof right now, but I know for a fact that Big Oil bought that water engine patent and shelved it. I'll look for it tonight. Meanwhile, here is another article along the same vein: Audi creates non-polluting diesel in 2015. Why isn't it in use yet????? https://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-successfully-made-diesel-fuel-from-air-and-water. Why isn't this new awesome diesel on the market?

I don't understand what you mean about companies compensate 100% for every environment usage? Compensate in what way? Magically eliminate the landfills and all the toxic substances that are created under the current system?

[–]muellermeierschulz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

E-Fuels are expensive. The costs would be around 4,50 € per liter. Existing landfills can of course not disappear. But one can regulate the process for new products. It must be recyclebar. If that is impossible, the company must pay for another form of compensation, planting trees or cleaning oceans.

[–]christine_grab 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Here is the engine I was thinking of: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-created-a-fossil-fuel-free-jet-engine-prototype. It runs on air, not water, so I was mistaken.

Did you pull that 4.50 euro per liter number out of your butt? The article clearly says the fuel made from air will cost 1 - 1.50 euro per liter: "But Audi and Sunfire now want to build a bigger factory, and anticipate that once production is scaled up, the e-diesel will sell to the public for between 1 and 1.50 Euros per litre, dependent on the cost of renewable electricity. With traditional diesel currently on the market for upwards of 1.50 Euros per litre in Germany, this would make the fuel extremely competitive, and perfectly positioned to made sustainable travel accessible to everyone..."

Recyclable? Recycling plants are closing down because its not cost effective: https://www.wired.com/story/the-worlds-recycling-is-in-chaos-heres-what-has-to-happen/

Even "green" sources of energy are filling up landfills: https://www.activistpost.com/2020/02/green-energy-wind-turbines-are-piling-up-in-landfills-cant-be-recycled.html

How are you going to put the oil back into the ground and the minerals back into the earth once they have been mined? How are you going to fish the pollution back out of the air once its been expelled to ship raw materials to China, to produce these wasteful products, to ship them to US and Europe, to truck them around the continents to their end destination?

No, the more I think about it, the more clear it is to me that we need to stop producing things that don't need to be produced. Money should be paid to reward people for NOT exploiting the earth to start with. You just want to keep the same system in place of rewarding exploitation of the earth for profit, but somehow do something to offset that exploitation so its not as egregious as it could have been. What argument do you have for why we should be needlessly exploiting?

[–]muellermeierschulz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This new jet-engine technique is interesting.

The price for e-diesel is from this article. The ADAC is the biggest german car club. The german Wikipedia-Site listed a big possible price range.

Recycling: When recycling is possible (technical), then it should be mandatory and the customer should pay for it.

Is your system going to put the oil back into the ground (I didn't said that)?

You just want to keep the same system in place of rewarding exploitation of the earth for profit, but somehow do something to offset that exploitation so its not as egregious as it could have been. What argument do you have for why we should be needlessly exploiting?

Mindreading. Scott Adams would have blocked you for this.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read the article this morning. I grant that your article says as of today it costs 4.50 euros to produce e-fuel and they project it will go down to 2.29 euros. The article I provided said Audi anticipates it will cost 1 - 1.50 Euros once production is scaled up. So we were making a circular argument based on differing input info. And yes, with your comment about recycling being mandatory, you have essentially agreed with my point that the way money works nowadays is that we don't do the right thing for the earth if it is not financially profitable... we need to figure out another way to do the right thing for the earth. My guess by the word mandate is you mean pass laws requiring recycling?

My point was that if it is possible to create products that do not exploit the Earth, we should financially reward those non-exploitative products, even if they are not profitable under our current monetary system. Right now, pulling oil and minerals from the ground generates big money, and many people will fight tooth and nail to protect these exploitative practices because their own livelihood is on the line.

If it is possible to not make a product that needs to be recycled in the first place, we should be moving that direction. But we're not. Because people's livelihoods are on the line.

For example: I produce cheap toys that break instantly when played with. I buy paper and plastic for the packaging, plastic and metal for the toy. Those resources need to be exploited from the earth by people who do that for a living, and it is often done in ways that are damaging to Mother Earth. They get shipped to china in a ship that is a gross polluter by people who do that for a living. The factory is a gross polluter and is staffed by people who make cheap products for a living. The finished product is shipped to America, again on a freighter with people who do that for a living. Then it is trucked to a retail store by a trucker who does that for a living. And sold by a clerk who sells products for a living. And there is someone in the US whose job it is to coordinate the resources to get them to the factory and someone who coordinates getting end product from factory to store. And marketing people to generate interest in the product. All so that the product and its packaging can end up in the landfill. There are so many jobs on the line to stop the production of these products that really exist solely to pollute the earth, as they are not useful toys that last. And every one of those people will fight tooth and nail to protect their jobs, and thus their ability to make money.

That is why we need a new money system. Something where we are rewarded financially for doing the right thing for the earth, not the wrong thing. I don't think trying to keep the current system in place can work for much longer; it is just not really feasible to offset pollution/exploitation of the earth enough to protect our beautiful earth. The system as it stands now is simply too exploitative. We need to stop from happening in the first place.

[–]ctvzbuxr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, making money is not the sole purpose or any purpose of mankind. Producing resources is necessary for humans to survice. A market economy is simply the most efficient way to do that. How do I know? Because that's what people voluntarily tend towards when they have the ability to choose. The most efficient people create lots of great things, thus usually making the most money and sharing their ingenuity with the world. Unless, of course, the government intervenes into this beautiful process in an attempt to forcefully "share" the value of the productive with those who are not.