building future communities?

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 15 Sep 2005, 09:36

fishertrop wrote:
isenhand wrote:I think we need to move away from privet owned companies that are there just to make profit. Why not run production for everyone?s benefit?

Isn't that communism?

No, not necessarily. Of cause it is part of communism but not all systems that have that as part of it are communist. It?s just an area that over laps between communism and technocracy.

fishertrop wrote:
I think you can define "running production for everyone's benefit" in more than way.

Of cause

fishertrop wrote: If you have a small and vibrant "free market" (term used minus today's baggage...) system that allows small businesses or one-man businesses to prosper, and this is done within a framework that prevents all the nasty things we see today and uses a more appropriate form of "money", then you could say that runs the production for everyone's benifit.

That to me does not really get to the problem. It just the same as what we are doing now but on a smaller scale. How would you balance such a system? How would you prevent all the nasty things we see today?

fishertrop wrote: If you want people to be productive, motivated, creative, efficient then I think you need to learn one of the (few) good things that capitalism has shown us is that directly tying an individual's efforts (pysical and mental) to his or her reward can be a very positive thing.

Agreed, but money itself is not a motivator. It?s what it represents that is the motivator. In fact it?s having a goal and achieving it (for which we you money as a means to do) that motivates. You can have the same goal central motivation but without money and you can have it even if the basic needs are met any everyone has an equal share in the basic resources. One good example of that is how Linux develops.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 15 Sep 2005, 10:17

isenhand wrote: Now, would fraud be possible if there was no money?

If money did not exist, it would soon be invented. Its too convenient NOT to exist. A bit like the eye. An incredibly useful and advantageous organ which has evolved totaly independently on several occasions.

I think we need to move away from privet owned companies that are there just to make profit. Why not run production for everyone?s benefit?

The road to totalitarianism is paved with good intentions.

Its been tried. It doesnt work. Unfortunately human beings are not purely altruistic beings, and what you are suggesting requires that. We are all a mix of selfishness and altruism in varying amounts.

So, I think I need a bigger slice of the pie than you need, and Im bigger and stronger than you are. What are you going to do about it? Thats what any system has to deal with.

Have you ever read George Orwells "Animal Farm"?

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 15 Sep 2005, 10:28

skeptik wrote:
isenhand wrote: Now, would fraud be possible if there was no money?
If money did not exist, it would soon be invented. Its too convenient NOT to exist. A bit like the eye. An incredibly useful and advantageous organ which has evolved totaly independently on several occasions.

Why reinvent money if you have no need for it?

skeptik wrote:
I think we need to move away from privet owned companies that are there just to make profit. Why not run production for everyone?s benefit?

The road to totalitarianism is paved with good intentions.

Its been tried. It doesnt work.

True, so I would never advocate that. Not keen on such a form of government at all.

skeptik wrote: Unfortunately human beings are not purely altruistic beings, and what you are suggesting requires that. We are all a mix of selfishness and altruism in varying amounts.

No, it does not require purely altruistic beings. Why would it need that? You would need people to act rationally and that comes about from training and education. Some people are better at that than others but you don?t need everyone to be so. Nor anyone person to be so all the time. Any system that involved people needs has to expect irrational conflicts etc and has to allow for them. But still irrational people can act rational at times

skeptik wrote: Have you ever read George Orwells "Animal Farm"?

yeap

Bootstrapper · Post by **Bootstrapper** » 15 Sep 2005, 11:10

We are all a mix of selfishness and altruism in varying amounts.

Add greed, laziness and the need for 'status' to that and you have a reasonable description of human nature, IMO.

To stand a chance of success, any proposed socio-economic system must address these realities.

Power corrupts. That's why I don't like to see too much power concentrated in one place: for example Govcorp and it's monopolistic privelege to issue money and force us to accept it. Yes, government, money and the marketplace have been dreadfully abused by the priveleged elites. But that doesn't make them bad institutions. So, if you want to throw something out, we could all afford to lose the priveleged elites.

What's needed is a way to 'engineer' the circumstances so that the needs of the commons are balanced with those of the market, as Peter Barnes explains in this essay.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 15 Sep 2005, 11:21

Technocracy splits things between the technology aspect of society and the people aspect of society. Power does not reside in anyone?s hands.

I would also advocate that the different aspects should be decentralised as well. That would also mean that power is distributed and again does not reside in anyone?s hand.

Also I think openness is important so that people can see what is being done and there is freedom of speech. These are an important part of any society that wish to minimise people problems.

Bootstrapper · Post by **Bootstrapper** » 15 Sep 2005, 11:43

isenhand wrote:Also I think openness is important...

Agreed! Much of what Govcorp does, is done in secret. Especially those things which ultimately cause harm.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 25 Sep 2005, 21:07

Microgrids as peer-to-peer energy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4245584.stm

Small networks of power generators in "microgrids" could transform the electricity network in the way that the net changed distributed communication

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 25 Sep 2005, 21:32

fishertrop wrote:Microgrids as peer-to-peer energy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4245584.stm

Small networks of power generators in "microgrids" could transform the electricity network in the way that the net changed distributed communication

Yeps. But that would challenge the Government-memeplex. In order for 'Government' to function, Central Control and Dependency are 'must' check boxes. People *must* be totally dependent on centrally controlled systems for their day-to-day necessities.

Just imagine what could happen if 30% of the population was independent with respect to shelter, warmth, clothes and food! Small houses without loans, wood stoves in place and a significant plot for growing stuff. If some S hit some fan, they could just batten down the hatches and keep on living. Slightly darker in the winter, but so what?

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 25 Sep 2005, 21:48

Woking has set up the first independent micro-grid utility company, supplying electricity independent of the Grid (and waste heat) to the local area at approx 90% efficiency,(as opposed to the grid at something like 30%).

This could be combined with the kind of nano generation (wood fuel, pv's, micro wind turbines and conservation measures) on each house or building to give a degree of energy independence to the individual.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 02 Oct 2005, 09:01

I have put the ideas I like for "Holonic Societies for the Future" up on the web, if anyone is interested in one possible way to go beyond PO.

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 18 Oct 2005, 04:07

Helping to develop a community interests me very much, so I've just started a thread in "Wales" Forum on this possibility.

As I see it, most of modern society will have little to offer native rural communities but unskilled unfit manual labour, and most will have huge amounts to learn.

Given that whatever is done will reflect the potentials locally available, I guess those seeking to participate would do well to start with choosing a county, or at least a country.
Hence a thread for Wales.

Billhook

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 18 Oct 2005, 12:22

Ballard wrote:This could be combined with the kind of nano generation (wood fuel, pv's, micro wind turbines and conservation measures) on each house or building to give a degree of energy independence to the individual.

Although nano-generation could be useful to the individual, it would not be the most efficient means of feeding the grid due to synchro losses. Off-grid schemes are great for remote locations; I see little point in going off-grid when a grid connection is already there. I believe that community-level generation (e.g. CHP schemes) would be best, but only part of a holistic solution.

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 18 Oct 2005, 13:41

What about nano-generation tied into a smaller local 'minigrid'? A local grid could be backed up with various measures ie hydrogen 'battery' pumped water etc.

Then the individual houses would use the local grid as the battery, not requiring an 'off grid' solution. However the nano generation would reduce energy costs to the individual and using the local grid would get round the syncro loss issue.

This is already being used in woking, and is proposed for parts of london.

Any excess can be bought or sold between local centers, this would get around the huge losses that the powerstations rack up because waste heat could be used for space heating instead of being dumped into cooling towers.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 18 Oct 2005, 20:46

[pedantic]
I think that would count as "microgeneration".
[/pedantic]