[MG] scientific method

russell perera russell1q2w3e at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 27 19:52:32 EST 2012


Michael,
Money creation is
always a problem. It is a pyramid scheme. Whether it is a government or private
funded budget, the creation of money always does as a debt. On top of that
there is an interest charge that not available in the market. Anywhere in the
world, if there is an infrastructure project mean there is an additional debt
creates in that economy. Accumulation of debt and interest would lead to default
in cyclic bases over and over again. We called it recession, credit default,
and so many other nice names for this con game. Over all people are enslaving
by this number game. We called it finance. I will explain further. Think if you
are in Small Island with very little resources and no trade with other
countries. Somebody will donate or create million or billion dollars. What is
the use of that money? They just need the food and basic necessities to
survive. We need resources and technologies to survive and to have a comfort
life, not the money. Everything we achieved as human race that relate to
technology and science. Science and technology is the only best tool that we
have to overcome our challenges, not the money. Once we remove the medium of
exchange that money from our economy, then we will have the full potential of
the science and technology. 
So situation A – 1. And
B- Even they agree on infra structure budget, the creation of money lead to
economy in deeper in to debt. So over all infra structure project is a bad idea
in monetary system. 
Russel 


________________________________
 From: Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com>
To: start at metagovernment.org 
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:18:12 PM
Subject: Re: [MG] scientific method
 
russell perera said:
> Main Problems – Money, infinite material desire that generate by
> monetary system, lack of understanding about resources management
> and technology inaccessibility due to patents.

How is money a problem in this particular situation?  Again, here it
is (call it situation A):

  (1) The people who live in a community all agree that housing is the
      top priority for the infrastructure budget.

  (2) A detailed plan is drafted by experts.  The experts agree it is
      a good plan.

  (3) The people who live in the community do not like the plan.  They
      agree it is a bad plan.

Suppose we change it to situation B:

  (3) The people who live in the community like the plan.  They agree
      it is a good plan.

Is money still a problem?  Is there any problem at all in B?  If not,
then the problem in A must come from the difference between the two.
What is the problem in A?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



russell perera said:
> Hi Alex and Michael, 
> Main Problems – Money,
> infinite material desire that generate by monetary system, lack of
> understanding about resources management and technology inaccessibility due to
> patents.    
> Before I explain
> housing building challenge I should explain resource based economy. 
> Resource Based Economy:
> ·         Resource Accounting
> ·         Dynamic equilibrium
> ·         Strategic design( technological
> efficiency)
> Particular region must
> calculate their resources, use the dynamic equilibrium for resource management
> for example production of wood must relate to planting of trees. Products must
> produce collaborative way with best technology we can use in this moment. 
> This is a central
> planning system. Interdisciplinary team (experts) involve for planning the
> cities, industries and farming. Demand or opinion influenced by resource of the
> region and technology of the region. Other way to demand is fulfilled with
> access abundance system. Instead of property based system we should have access
> based system, for example instead of own a car we have access to cars at any
> time. Once we have access to houses and build according to resource base
> economic model then our opinion is not use as an infinite demander, as a
> participant on the system, because we know our limitation of resources and
> technologies. I think this is a true participatory democracy. For produce the
> stuffs of course we will use scientific method. Our opinion and
> interdisciplinary team opinion are subject to resources, dynamic equilibrium
> and technologies thus voting to produce stuff will be more rational and
> unbiased. Access abundance may lead to the property ownership obsolete.  
> Simplification- Design
> everything collaborative democratic manner with resource base economic model---
> Produce the stuffs according to scientific method------ access abundance.  
> If we have advance
> super computer, then we can design software for resource accounting, dynamic
> equilibrium, strategic design with that super computer to produce best stuffs
> with minimum human opinion and less interdisciplinary team involvement.
> Actually United States military has such a system to produce weapons that not
> use human opinion.     
> Only thing that we have
> to develop software to unite people, industries and professionals that come together
> to allocate one place to develop a prototype city then rest of people can
> follow. I think direct democratic software can play crucial role to overcome
> this challenge. 
> Let me explain housing
> building in resource based economy. I have to inform interdisciplinary and
> central computer that I need a house at particular region. Since it is not my
> property and it is an access based method I will not have irrational desire to
> have fancy staff. The house is going to build according to resource based
> economic model thus I already know what resources utilize for build the houses
> and technological parameters. So my opinion is reconciled with experts and
> supercomputer. However in monetary system how we can ever accept experts plan
> that we don’t have any idea of resources and technologies. More over manipulate
> the masses by the advertising lead to over consumption of the finite resources.
> I think opinion of the people and expert’s opinion are never going reconcile in
> the monetary system.     
> That is why I advocate
> participation of the people to understand and educate by themselves to
> restriction of the resources and technologies. Then they will have self control
> and satisfaction that driven by knowledge. The participation of people on decision
> making process would lead to psychological tendency that they are not under
> control by some authority. So participation of the people is not a problem, it
> is a solution. It is a necessity until them confident over that system.     
> -------
> Russel 
>  
>  
>  
>   
>       
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: "alex at twister11.de" <alex at twister11.de>
> To: Metagovernment Project <start at metagovernment.org> 
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 3:00:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [MG] scientific method
>  
> 
> If the people do not like it, it is because of REASONS :-)
> 
> 1. Could be, they dont like the color
> 2. Could be, because they want to use the building in a way that was not anticipated by the experts (a requirement that was not expressed in the first place)
> 3. Could be, because people have habits (structure in mind or body (like muscle memory) that built over time) and they know its too much change to anticipate the "new ways" of doing/living - so they might need smaller increments
> 4. It could be, because they don't see or comprehend how they could do all the stuff that they did in the past with the new design.
> 5. Could be, that cooking in the kitchen was of intrinsic value for some people, they enjoyed cooking food, and maybe the new approach uses a replicator like the one used in Star Trek - and they hate it to not be able to do their hobby, or maybe they FEAR that they are not needed anymore and dont see how they will fit into the new way of doing things
> ...
> ...its lot of potential issues - and everyone has a subjective view on the topic, so who knows if experts do not miss a perspective or maybe there are conflicting perspectives and experts need to make trade offs, because there is no technology known yet that could solve the issue with a win-win situation, or maybe in an actual situation there is no one imaginative enough to find that solution...
> So in essence it SCIENCE vs ART - Is programming ART? Or is it SCIENCE? ...is XY an ART or is it SCIENCE?? - where there is room for Art and there normaly is if the issue is not trivial, - and with enough subjective perspectives there will be many requirements and thus the issue wont be trivial anymore and there will be always room for ART :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> 
> Russel and Alex,
> >
> >I think we still need a better understanding of the problem as Russel
> >sees it.
> >
> >
> >russell perera said:
> >> It does depend on the issue. The issue is a demand and then software
> >> has to consider their opinion directly. For example the issue is a
> >> demand about housing. It is a basic necessity that demand must be
> >> addressed. ...
> >
> >So when it comes to deciding whether to build housing, the opinion of
> >the people who are affected by that decision matters.  However:
> >
> >> ... However building the houses is a technical issue that needs
> >
> >> scientific method approach.  The issue needs only opinion base
> >> resolution and then software has to consider both direct democracy
> >> and liquid democracy. For example security or foreign policies that
> >> need opinion based decisions.  The issue is atechnical and then we
> >
> >> have to use scientific method as a primary method to resolve the
> >> problem. Direct democracy should consider if people are well
> >> informed and educated on this issue. ...
> >
> >When it comes to deciding *how* to build the housing, the opinion of
> >the people who are affected might *not* matter, or it might matter
> >*less*, or in some qualified way.  I want to understand exactly what
> >you mean here.  Please consider this situation:
> >
> > (1) The people who live in a community all agree that housing is the
> >     top priority for the infrastructure budget.
> >
> > (2) A detailed plan is drafted by experts.  The experts agree it is
> >     a good plan.
> >
> > (3) The people who live in the community do not like the plan.  They
> >     agree it is a bad plan.
> >
> >Ought the plan (2) to be executed?
> >
> >> ... If people don’t have knowledge but still they want to involve,
> >
> >> then they can use liquid democracy. For example energy production is
> >> highly technical issue that can use scientific method, if the people
> >> have knowledge about energy production and then they can participate
> >> directly and the people who don’t have knowledge can use liquid
> >> democracy. In reality people don’t have knowledge about such highly
> >> technical issues but we should have a software program that anybody
> >> can participate on the issue as a matter of pure democratic
> >> principle.
> >
> >You see liquid democracy (transitive delegation) as a solution to a
> >problem, or part of a solution.  But before talking about the possible
> >solutions, we need a better understanding of the problem.  We wished
> >away the problematic fact of decisions being made by the opinion of
> >the few and are now in a counterfactual situation where we confront
> >the opinion of the many (3).  In this new situation, what exactly is
> >the problem we face?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Michael Allan
> >
> >Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
> >http://zelea.com/

_______________________________________________
Start : a mailing list of the Metagovernment project
http://www.metagovernment.org/
Post to the list: Start at metagovernment.org
Manage subscription: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20120227/4d0d77bb/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Start mailing list