MEGA EDEN - Gaby de Wilde

quote: irc://

[13:51:21] [generic] Look i am not trying to steal anything here, its 1 article. If it were a reasonable price i would buy it.
[13:51:32] [generic] I would ever buy the print version, but its out of print
[13:53:31] [frogzoo] yes well mmm, if it weren't for your immediate difficulties, we could start an interesting discussion on intellectual property
[14:24:38] [generic] frogzoo, my intuition says that the thought itself cannot belong to anyone
[14:25:03] [generic] Only the physcial consequences can belong to someone
[14:25:28] [frogzoo] well it's a view I once shared, but I've come to realise smart people deserve to earn a living too
[14:26:04] [generic] I understand that, but if I buy that article from spingerlink, i doubt the author would see a dime
[14:26:42] [generic] anyway, I meant the actual thought itself, i dont think you can own that
[14:27:40] [frogzoo] well, I'm sick of seeing plumbers make twice/three times what university professors earn
[14:28:02] [frogzoo] just because of the difference between manual labour and thought manufacture
[14:34:59] [generic] Well, the sad truth is that institution dont actually carge enough
[14:36:32] [generic] I paid my $276.30 this smester for my philosophy class
[14:39:42] [generic] there is about 30 students and the class is 5 months longs
[14:42:03] [generic] that would be 1,657.8
[14:42:03] [generic] a month, IF the teacher recieved all of that money
[14:42:46] [generic] for one class of course so if he taugh 5 classes he would be alright
[14:43:06] [generic] but in realty he is not paid anywhere near that much ofcourse
[14:44:12] [generic] he is an adjunct work teaches about 4 classes a week only at my school he als teaches at another university
[14:44:59] [generic] so he gets paid like a dime for student practically, its pretty wrong
[14:47:00] [generic] an institution cant really survive on just classes,
[14:50:32] [generic] but then again, we now have pay for print at my school this year, coincedently the 3 people who run the school also got 100,000 dollars in "bonuses" this year which is substantionally more than usual
[17:00:00] [giuly] [generic] frogzoo, my intuition says that the thought itself cannot belong to anyone
[17:00:09] [giuly] I tend to disagree
[17:00:26] [giuly] because an article on springerlink is not just thought
[17:01:31] [giuly] there is a lot of work involved to bring thought into a presentable form
[17:02:07] [giuly] if you want to be good at this, hegel is your friend
[17:02:44] [giuly] reading (and understanding) what the fuck hegel says takes time, and during this time, you have to pay your rent and your food
[17:03:40] [giuly] thus, you can't give away your elaborated thoughts like this - unless you specifically wish to do so and put your work under copyleft or CC
[17:04:54] [giuly] I'd say that your copyright should end immediately after death rather than after 100 years, though.
Fascinating topic. Here is how to fix that puzzle, I'm not saying it could be done but this is how it should work. [arrogance mine] You can't give away your elaborate thoughts because you have to pay rent and food. But the price of rent and food is determined by what ppl are willing to pay for it. If we aperciate (for example) how oil comes out of the ground for free, that land doesn't cost anything (we really have plenty of it on this planet), that we can (allow to) grow enless amounts of food in new and exiting ways (permaculture) then one can only conclude that you can not give away your ideas because of a bunch of lies. If we start from the other end this lack of ideas might not be undesirable to those who currently control the fruits of those lies. They ofc rationalize this endlessly up to a point where everyone including themselves believe(s) the(ir own) lies. It is one big parade of ignorance. People even get angry when the topic comes up. It isn't questionable that the lack of new ideas serves old ideas. Any business man must understand cause and effect where it benefits him or he shall perish. An empire of lies doesn't benefit from facts. All this media nonsense about our glorious science and our glorious technological progress is complete bullshit. All the good stuff isn't publicly disclosed - ever! We have thousands of years of history to prove it. Publish your recipe to make gold in a scientific journal? Give away the blue prints for the space ship I've been pumping my millions into the last 30 years? It is a completely crazy idea anyone would publicly share anything that is actually worth something. We of course have many people who don't even remember how to make things, they will be the first to say everything has been invented already and nothing new that is worthwile will ever be discovered. For the multi billions the US FDA approves 21 cures per year. Our professionals have to pay for food, housing, and energy, and a boat, and... and another house. To motivate professionals to work harder we reward them. There is nothing wrong with that but the reward vanishes into interest payments over virtual debt on virtual property. In stead of rewarding peoples expertise we bring in a 3rd party to reward for doing nothing, and a 4th, and a 5th and at the end of the day poof nothing left! The incentive then sucks and it costs an arm and a leg. Our doctor gets this sad little boat that he never owns then the patient has to pay this insane smack of cash for it. They who builds the boat also pay for food and housing etc They work hard then have nothing. A few people get rich out of this but their wealth is vaporised just like that of everyone else! hah?! are we that stupid collectively? The answer is YES!

giuly's reference to this world of undisclosed ideas says it all. Even the small ideas are not shared. ppl will take those to the grave before sharing. Or the next keeper of the secret forgets to pass it on.

Because birds don't pay rent for their nest they are not communists because of that. The tax bird is just a kind of predator that is with us to eat the weak. Killing greed isn't needed at all. The greedy people only need to learn where to stop. Destroying things has always been easier than building them. This idea couldn't care less if we have royalty and insanely rich professionals, at least make it an efficient system so that we can see what it is really costing us. Not stories, real numbers. My guess is that if we really push the envelope on automation and educate everyone to automate rather than to become automations then we will have exponential growth of wealth.

If we simply give everyone the means to survive there will be many who will start researching stuff without being instructed to do so. It is very much as if the answer is already in the genetic memory.

Why would we want people charging rent money from people who work for us? We could tell the owners of the property to metaphorically fuck off and die. Who do they think they are? We are in charge here. It sounds far fetched but look how governments own huge amounts of land. Insane amounts of it.

People are afraid to dream, dreams cost so much money then you also need to live some place and feed yourselves while working on it for 60 years of your life. In the current system it is out of the question. In stead people do all kinds of sad trivial things. Sad small thrills made out of plastic by children in China.

We should still have an elaborate system to reward people for their contributions to (what we think is) our progress. I see nothing wrong with rewarding people in advance. If you have some brilliant idea we should give you a title, a medal and a statue then dedicate the design of your house to you. You will be invited to speach in the appropriate locations. Others will have time to attend your lecture, time to help progress the work you presented AND provide material for your next lecture.

The work should be made the reward in it self. If you are doing that what you love to do most you don't really want the medal for it. You should be forced to accept it because everyone else insists you do.

If the system of medals works for the justification of the killing innocent strangers then it should work for everything else. How much money does one really need? Could that be non at all?

Am I suggesting to abolish money entirely? Not at all! Money is out way to value things, without it we wouldn't know how to balance the use of resources. The idea is no more than to remove the essential things from the free market. Things like cloths, food, energy, a roof over your head and health (not disease care but actual health)

This not just applies to humans but it should equally apply to the artifical beings we call institutions. If we remove their housing and energy bills and remove their employees housing, energy and food bills the company can be as inefficient as it wants to be. A factory could continue to produce things long after being financially viable. If the employees want to continue to make steam engines without pay it is entirely up to them. If you really enjoy the thing you are doing even a negative salary would be acceptable.

Incidentally this is exactly how countries are ran durring war time. The bigger the war the more the need for efficiency drowns out the need for parasitic behavior. No one really needs parasites so they might actually go to prison. For some magical reason a war also bring enormous profits. It "odly" seems to scale with the productivity. No surprice here.

I have this wonderful idea for a huge automated seeding and planting vehicle to be used in the desert. The idea is to utilize solar thermal to do thermolysis. In such system the exhaust heat can be recycled efficiently. The vehicle is technically a driving factory that builds things like irrigation systems, pumping and filtration stations. It also grows worms and other useful insects. The output product should be a permaculture forest that is entirely self sustaining. A food forest that requires little more than eating and harvesting.

This is a sound idea but the way everyone is occupied with the big lies doesn't allow me to build a team that can develop such a thing. Or maybe I'm not motivated enough to believe it can be done. Most of the components of this device require some kind of expertise that (in the current system) is hard to find for free.

If we can change the world deserts into something edible it would definitely be worth it. Classic agriculture can not do this job for it has lost all sense of reality. Its big machines are suitable to build self sustaining systems with the exception of the insane fuel consumption. If the bulk of this work can be done with solar the entire desert becomes a business opportunity. An opportunity unlike anything currently available on the stock market. In other words, the good intentions only have to do so much of the work, the hounds will (try to) take over soon enough.

If the virtual hunt for food and housing doesn't allow for any ethics the whole thing will never happen. While enormous my macro hack clearly isn't macro enough.

If you think you own some land and the land is a desert and you have no means to bring it back to life then it should be confiscated. You clearly have no business being there -- embarrassing mankind as a whole like that.

You can either have this pathetic ownership of desert land OR you can feed the billions of starving people. To those who don't understand which is the correct choice we should suggest to dispose of them for their lack of usefulness. There honestly is nothing cruel about this? Is there? At the very least we should give the same treatment the person wants for others. haha

In the world we live in it isn't worth sharing ideas even if you want to. No one cares about my mega-eden fantasies. More than a bunch of insults I shouldn't expect. I could abandon the dreams like everyone else but this clearly wouldn't make me a better person. It is not even tempting. It is understandable of course, they are just being realistic. Ideas can not work in a system designed to prevent ideas from working. Most ppl know the system has it's flaws they just forget they are the system. It's judge, it's jury an it's executioner.

When it is John Doe's turn to put his head on the block then all of a sudden he cares about the way things work. (see war example above) To me this is the definition of a lack of imagination. It shows that even bad dreams are useful.


-Gaby de Wilde

Paste Description for giuly

Comment on

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 2:08:08pm MDT 

Font: Small - Normal - Large
  1. Mr de Wilde already pointed out the idea that people are afraid of dreaming. More precisely, itís that people canít afford to dream.
  2. The modern society is build on the fact that everything can be turned into money. You spend most of your time planting tomatoes in your garden? Rent an acre, plant and sell your tomatoes and youíre all set up. However, this works only for professions that create material matters. For example, letís assume that somebody is enthusiastic about politics, and thus wants to become a politician. This is a performance of thought that doesnít bring immediately material nor monetary benefits to the enthusiast. Even in countries that incorporate a safety net in form of "unemployment benefits", the enthusiast is not able to perform his studies full time. In European countries, people are forced to settle for profane and less profitable professions, against their will, and surrender to the tyranny of the capital and itís continuous, governmental approved and supported hunger for cheap workers.
  3. What ever the ideas of the enthusiast were, we will never know. They might pop up out of the blue from a proper politician, who had the money to attend a university, decades later, bringing heavenly blesses and wealth for himself and his descendants for generations to come.
  4. You might ask, "Why doesnít he just attend a university, so he can live his dream?". Naturally, that would be the logical solution to this problem. But there are at least two unreasonable restrictions. First, of course, the tyranny of the capital. In Europe, this is a secondary issue, however somewhat present. There arenít tens of thousands of dollars of fees just to attend one semester of university, but still he has to provide food and shelter to himself. Second, he has to be eligible. This means in most countries that he has to have a high school degree or equivalent. The single fact that he has a broad knowledge in politics and associated skills like rhetoric and dialectic which might even exceed skills which would be acquired during high school does not count at all, because there is no enrollment test, which would make him eligible regardless of the fact whether he have even seen a school from the inside in his lifetime or not. Driving him into endless and exhausting years of night school to obtain a in this context rather symbolic high school degree while working to provide himself is a great liability, and his will to endure this intellectual and capitalistic torture should make him eligible in the first place - in particular as he has fundamental knowledge of the field of study anyways.
  5. For me, this is a selective harassment on the lower class of society, whether intended or not, whether reluctantly tolerated or deliberately approved by the responsible authority.
  7. In conclusion is to say that as a community of human beings, like Plato has intended more than two thousand years ago already, we should watch our children carefully and give them the suitable education needed to drive them to their full potential, even if this doesnít comply with generalized school legislations, synchronized curricula or the budget that can be brought up by the pupils, but with the individual needs of the pupils so they can live up to their full potential, serving the community and additionally, making the world a better and more advanced place for the man and woman of the future.
  9. Kind regards
  10. G. A. Montecarlo