View RSS Feed

Sentient Void

On the 'Zeitgeist Movement' and a 'Resource Based Economy'.

Rate this Entry
This is from an old forum debate with a Zeitgeister in regards to TZM and an RBE.

Prior to my current career as a Banker, I was actually a certified computer technician. Quite a difference in career choices, I know. I still harbor my passion for technology, I always will, and have the strong desire to get back into the industry...

But I digress.

Being someone who has read much on austrian economics, and am quite familiar with how computer software and hardware functions... I can confidently say that any computer, however powerful/'fast' - will *not* be able to solve the coordination, information, and calculation problems that *any* form of central planning results in.

Not to mention that such a computer would have to be literally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent of all situations in all places at all times between all individuals (and in a sense, 'within' all individuals). This computer would have to be both programmed and maintained by human beings - an 'elite' and ultimately privileged class - that are corruptible, imperfect and fallible. This can lead to disastrous consequences under such an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent computer trying to coordinate and calculate where all resources should go and when, especially according to the constantly changing, sometimes even fleeting, subjective demands of individuals.

The alternative to the elite 'programmers' and 'maintainers' of this computer, which would ultimately be oppressive, corrupt and a miserable economic failure, is however further into the future, giving these responsibilities (of maintenance and programming) over to a *true* AI. However, while it may be able to constantly program/update itself software wise, and perhaps even fix and update itself hardware wise (through controlled machines), it would still have serious trouble with the coordination/information/calculation problems.

Honestly, The only way I could possibly fathom any such system ever working within an environment of *finite resources* is if this true AI was not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *generally speaking*, but if this true AI also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *within* every individual (in order to tackle the legitimate coordination/calculation/information problem according to the changing subjective demands of individuals). Meaning every individual would literally need to have cybernetic hardware/software hardwired/connected into their brains, with some sort of wireless connection (to ensure 'free' mobility, I put 'free' in quotes because of the obvious loss of freedom and individuality involved in being part of such a system) to the central true AI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this legitimately alludes to some sort of hivemind Borg-like techno-collective. This, to me, seems to be the only way such a system that Peter Joseph is envisioning could even *possibly* function efficiently and effectively.

If I'm correct, honestly - as I still speak on the behalf of my subjective and individual mind, I really would *not* want to be part of such a system. But I speak for myself - others may very well prefer to be part of it. If so, then that's their choice.

Who knows if such a system might be able to refrain from violating the NAP (in regards to those who choose to be free individuals) based on resource needs of this entire techno-collective. Will 'it' (I say 'it', because it would be questionable if you could call this techno-collective any longer a group of individuals anymore or one legitimate entity) remain peaceful, or might they claim that 'resistance is futile'?

Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?

I'm completely serious.

Updated 06-20-2013 at 05:46 PM by Sentient Void

Tags: government


  1. WurmD's Avatar
    You are funny! ^_^ It even seems to me that you made an effort to be funny on purpose ^_^!

    How I Imagine the required assessment of demands of individuals: Every buy/order information being logged and accessible to the production sector (pretty much what already happens today when you go to Walmart; but scaled up)
  2. nobody's Avatar
    Your post should read ; Sietgest. Besides any other administrating from other than one person is COLLECTIVISM. ALL and/or any portion of humanity is guilty of same. Even the chosen people. They answer to one.
    SO, you must ask what is in the Collective for me, because YOU are not, "the one".
    Updated 04-06-2012 at 11:47 AM by nobody
  3. Neil Desmond's Avatar
    Hello. This is my first post on this forum. I'm trying to understand this argument which is essentially the "economic calculation problem." What is so difficult about, for example, having automation produce apples or oranges, counting (with a simple sensor) how many are consumed each week, month, day, instant - whatever, storing that information in a database, and increasing or decreasing the number of apple trees or orange trees that are planted based on that information alone?

    For today's society, I believe that free-market capitalism is better than central planning or state-regulated "capitalism" (if you want to call it that), but I also believe that once we achieve enough advances in automation technology (the hardware and mechanism side of things; I think we've surpassed the information storage and processing threshold) a post-scarcity society will spawn and the need for trade and money will become obsolete. The quality of life and standard of living for both rich and poor will go up, and crime (about 99% of which is based on trade/money/scarcity) will practically vanish. Banks, insurance companies, certain parts of the government, and many other entities are overhead that can be eliminated. To me this overhead is a more complicated web of information gathering, storing, processing, and transferring than what would be necessary for a post-scarcity society.

    I'm a Libertarian and advocate of Ron Paul, because with less government in the way (which is what he's offering) and more room and freedom for people to be innovative (which is what I want to be - I have some patents for automation), we'll probably be able to get to that post-scarcity society sooner rather than later.

    What do you think?