SaggyBalls

(hear hear, burninator)

A 'Living Wage' is probably the closest thing to this concept. Many of the facets of the original article are echoed separately... Mechanized production, living wages, sustainable economy and culture... Interesting how putting them together and suggesting that we get rid of money (the biggest roadblock to them all working perfectly) gets people away from talking about those solutions and arguing that the idea isn't a realistic option at this point in time. Maybe it's only interesting to me...

What about the smaller local producers that don't have to be organic to make a great product? Does that still require far too much work, or is it merely not as 'cost effective' as American/lot meat?

Politics Forum?

That last line is pretty much the kicker thee, Dr. Mouse. 'earn their crust' Accounting for extra effort is one thing, but basing actions and rewards on money, and basing careers and life works on money all deal with that sentiment... ...'earning crust' Just because there is no civilization without taxation doesn't mean there couldn't be. The main concept in all of this is a future by design. How does your complexibility barrier matter much beyond appealing to people? there's always going to be a range of attitude but that doesn't mean that those attitudes have to dictate that a difficult change can't be worked out and communicated effectively. If everyone is provided for - for merely being alive (housing, food, clothing, communication, healthy community living, essential services) - and those that genuinely give back to their community/world are then rewarded with luxuries or career perks (nicer things) then there's no worry about 'earning their crust'. There's only more drive to achieve (rather than merely make the most money they can).

Food Security

After seeing this little snippet, I can only image how amazing some of Prince's video catalogue must be.

Alberta beef could never live to be as meaty and fat grazing on those dry plains. Small Ontario Farms produce a fantastic animal. If I have the option I never eat Alberta beef. I'm not a fan of Grain Fed animal. Almost everyhting sold in supermarkets is grown on larger scale feed lots. Chicken is a much easier animal to grow solely on grain than cattle. If you go south of the border, much of the chicken inb the supermarket will look yellow. Corn Fed Chicken. Cheap to feed, grows fast and fat. Most people think it's better because of that. As long as small scale agriculture keeps getting phased out due to restrictions (HR875) and through agribusiness tax examptions and subsidies, we will continually get cheaper low quality food. Also, as time goes on, we learn ways to make our cheap food taste much better. It's a bit scary.

phishtaper, if I had all the money I'd be getting rid of it in a damn hurry or get shot trying to empower people. Don't presume that I'm entirely weak. I'm pretty easy to please even though I bitch a lot. You're right about the current state of the world working with monetary constraints. Currency and Money are not enturely synonomous. Anyway, the 'we' are the masses. Perhaps that's an unfair point to make...I sincerely doubt most people have really listened to and read the lyrics to John Lennon's 'Imagine', let alone thought about a change in economic structure like this. However, how many of us that have pondered the concept, or read this far done anything but dismissed or found some way to refute the idea? If you have, thanks for taking the time on something I put out there. I entirely appreciate that the effort even exists most of the time. There are small scale economies (city/community currencies, bartering systems etc.) being worked out and with. As far as making this enormous change happen, it would take some kind of demand/revolution, be it through consumer choicxe, political action, or physical revolt (to name a few) but what's really so wrong with that? This is really just a future state of being. Society is going to evolve somehow and it's really up to us to keep it moving along. My problem isn't with trade, it's the manner in which it's more of a collective hindrance than an asset. We're going to tweak it here and there in the coming years and decades. It's our children and our childrens' children that are going to need to think about creating their world in a kinder more sustainable way in order for any real positive change to happen. I have never heard any just argument to explain away the woes in this world, only economic and political 'realities' (that word, while used sarcastically ilustrates my opinion perfectly) that arise and are upheld - Every explanation is centered around something rooted in greed and pride. Instead of really helping, peoples are offered credit to build/rebuild. That's not help, that's servitude under the guise of charity to make it look advantageous. It blows my mind how it takes charity to get much of the basic advances in the 3rd world (isn't it all the same world?(no I'm not wearing earth tones)). As much as this country's growth depends on immigration, there should really be no need for people to have to leave their country because it sucks to live there. Do you see this all as criticizing my 'affluent' life (regular access to exotic fruit, clean water, technology, information, safety) or criticizing the fact that this should not have to really be a state of affluence? People will ahve to be open to this concept and will have to try to work this construct into their ideals before it could ever conceivably work on any significant scale. I think a good first step is through Sustainability. The concept of a resource based economy is a generational extension of a sustainable economy. I still only see a criticism of the plausibility of the concept turning into reality. Is this really so upsetting and threatening that it really need an argument or heated respoonse? If that's the case then I need you to realize that You're going to be alright. Go hug somebody. I look at this as more like an 'architecture and society' thing. Sure it's not realistic at this given time, but it's within our grasp to have A future by design. What kinds of technological advances do you see as being more commonplace by 2030? More free energy? Hydroponic hothouses for communities and cities to grow more better fresher food closer to home? longer lasting, ergonomic homes? Simpler lifestyles? People living and working in the same area? Underwater oceanographic pods for rebuilding the ocean? Newly built cities? desalinization plants to bring the world fresh water? Nuclear Fuel reprocessing? (no need to mine uranium ever again)

Bill Maher's got a halfway there aspproach to politics and current events that, while refreshing in comparison to the rest of the media, doesn't really help anything but an ego. Ours and theirs.

"I'm not familiar with the 'free from' brand of products, but so true. We all live with E. Coli, as do most animals, and not only do we get along well with it, but we probably benefit from it." Yup. Grain Finished Beef blooms virulent E.Coli. High end slaughterhouses and Abbatoirs - I can only presu,me that's a big piece of the puzzle along with proper aging. Nobody should ever have to eat bloody meat. But then again, how low will you go to buy my hypocrisy?

Exactly. Improbable. Unlikely. Difficult. The events you describe aren't the obstacle in the way, it's our dismissal of the concept and lack of desire to change. Even if all the pieces were put into place to allow it to be put into motion, it takes us putting it into motion to even begin to form into reality. Realistically, War breeds profit and intolerance, division and pride, so your events, while you perhaps see them as dissolving power structures, would only create more to hold a change in base economy back.

'If you think nobody cares you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments' wise.

I'm so happy the Onion can't think of some other place to put everyone.

Like a world without Math?? Almost, Dave. But money isn't fundamental to civilization - it's just the system we're in and taught/led to believe is the only way. A big part of me appreciates the concept, but more often than not the only response that ever rears its head is that people seem threatened by the concept and coil back in fear/offense. How is money fundamental to civilization? If in that you mean trade, I get your point, but MONEY is not, say, a bunch of corn in return for some textiles. Money is giving a perceived value to be used for something of 'equivalent value'. Perceptions are always subjective and fail to retain scale. Trade is and has been necessary for advancement and achievement in most cases up to this point, but we're at the point that we/"they" (yeah yeah) could manage resources to help the entire world prosper, and the economic system as it stands doesn't really harbour that sentiment. In the past/historically, people/s would trade what they have left over from harvest and what they made for goods tht would enrich their lives and their neighbours. That is not how the world works today. Like I said, it is going to take people acknowledging and approaching the concept before it will even begin to be figured out and implemented. You're totally right about 'try to be nicer to one another' challenge, dr. Mouse. As great as the idea is, in this context that kind of thinking could serve to deflect someone from really pondering the idea, which is in all fairness necessary for any real 'debate'. I also see how 'complexity barrier' is a very convenient reason to move along, but if everyone keeps doing that, then convenience will be the main reason we never move forward. It took me awhile to get back to actually read the article - Can't really say that I'd be entirely useful on a real position in a thinktank on the issue this week either. the 'I/we can't do anything about it so why care' syndrome generally disappoints me even though I suffer from it from time to time. It's all the tiny details and 'holes' as Ms. Hux so put that people so often gravitate towards to dismiss a concept such as this and gets me to shelve it here and there. (I entirely appreciate the comment BTW, Sharon) Considering that, I find it funny that abstract concepts get glazed over and dismissed for the tangible, more 'concrete' - but the system we collectively latch onto is far less real than a system that is based on real things (resources). Money is created on a whim out and the system is far more controlled than merely accounted. ...Perceived value... Of course people live their lives for different reasons. Just the fact that there exist socioeconomic strata, poverty, and disease (most medical, social, and societal) should suggest the dire consequence of this. A system based upon money creates a sort of servitude that doesn't foster the kind of growth that humanity has the potential to achieve. Of course there are the people that 'get the system to work for them', but in actuality, they'd still be under someone's thumb if it came down to disaster/heavy consequence. I suppose the only way I see this is under the 'there's more to existence as what we've been led to believe' that would have beget Christianity out of an ultra-religious, dogmatic society. (Gnosticism, not Catholicism) That's a much tamer comparison than a world without math. Anyway, of course the concept of a resource-based economy would most likely best work in a smaller society/community and if it's going to be attempted that's of course a natural progression. It would be much easier to facilitate sustainability on a smaller scale. Since I see this as an ideal situation that, to some, if practiced could fix a lot of problems, it would stand to reason that if it were imposed upon us, would also create many others. I'm not trying to say 'now let's all do this' - more like 'someday we're all going to understand the need for, and want this...till then let's try to be nicer to one another'. I don't see this working anytime soon, but in order for it to really work, it would take a lot of cooperation. Though improbable in our lifetime, entirely possible. How could the world be worse off with this concept turned into a construct?

Anybody going from Hamilton?

I guess it's a matter of perspective, dima.

I thought you were talking about the 'audit the fed' piece. How does it matter who makes the robots and how is that a hole at this conceptual stage? I don't see that as a hole in the concept of a resource based economy and fail to see why that should really be something to use to argue against. A resource based eceonomy isn't going to even be attempted until the concept of working for a greater good/higher purpose is expressed and discussed en masse in a society. Until then, all sorts of demands and requirements for a more technology based society will present themselves. The details like 'who' does this will be worked out in the coming decades as people begin to accept the merits and logic behind a complete restructuring of our understanding of 'reward'. This isn't something that could really be rushed through. We're gonna be stuck with money and a selfish desire for luxury for quite some time, and although I'm not entirely complaining I do think that a lot of what we've come to expect or demand to be available to us is frivolous and petty while the needs of humanity are ignored around the world. While I await a nice new set of noise cancelling headphones, debate about buying new cabinets for my bass rig, and wish i had another pair of shorts, people around the world are starving, their water is unfit to drink, and our air is polluted. People are unwell because the things I want need to be delivered/shipped around the world need dirty fuel to get there. I'm not really losing a lot of sleep because of these things, but many of the 'things' I enjoy and use are incredibly wasteful. It's as simple as the food we/many people eat. So, looking at that concept, and considering that many of the things we use, need, and merely desire could be created in a more sustainable way, I don't see certain details as 'holes' to be all that crucial at this stage. It's going to take a long time to streamline our existence, and as long as the demand and delivery system are based on greed and desire we're going to be stuck with everything that it breeds. I'm not trying to say that everyone is being naughty for working within the system, nor am i suggesting that we all buy things that we don't care for, but with a more collective talk of 'change' or 'improvement' or 'Security and Prosperity' (groan), there's no demand to do it all exceptionally better everywhere. Now, many of the 'things' I want facilitate a simpler lifestyle or are easier to pack into smaller spaces (noise cancelling headpphones for mass transit, and blocking out a growingly overpopulated urban environment (If I choose to leave the country), tiny speakers for my bass that I can also use as stereo monitors for home recording and music in an apartment that are bus-friendly), but as much as I strive to shrink my stuff's physical footprint there's no way I can make sure the materials used are sustainably produced. It will take advances in technology for a robot to make anything better than a person, and it will take our constant movement forward to make better materials and improve our designs for both highly crafted items, and sustainably producing industry. As these advances happen and are refined again and again, the who, what, when, and where will become clearer. I won't let myself be bullied or persuaded to give up on this concept, as it's a huge part of the manner in which I expect humanity's ascenscion will have to present itself. It does seem very utopian to me, but over time, the concept of utopia bas been both watered down and bastardized with the notion that just because it's not realistic in the present, it should never be aspired to for our future, or for our future's future.

Looks like the 'free from' line isn't affected. Makes snese though, cause if a farmer has to raise an animal to not need hormones or antibiotics to be sold/ eaten, it probably won't have a problem with E.Coli. Everything i've purchased in those lines of chicken and pork have been the best cuts i've ever eaten from a Grocery Store. I look there first and tend to see if anything's a good enough sale to buy my hypocrisy.

Sovereignty?? HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the link.

Phony? I don't know how bang on that is...crazy asshole? That probably fits better, with the case boiling down to how accepting we are of assholes at the time. Are we going to be Snooty, over-polite, restrained Canadians, or be able to humour someone enough to get past the point of asshole in a first impression and get the asshole past being an asshole so that our time isn't completely wasted? Stating that a professional musician is 'passionate about music' is redundant and stupid. I would probably have handled it about the same as Billy Bob but would have tried to be a bit more inclusive and engaged Jian in some better discussion afterwards...so not really 'just about the same' for long, but for that split second when the 'what the fuck kind of question is that' thought pops in our head...definitely. Jian Ghomeshi is a very nice guy (or sure plays the part well enough to have impressed me when I met him briefly a few years ago) and a great host, but he could have deflected it differently so we wouldn't have to hear about Billy Bob. Talking to a musician/actor about his/her passion for someting ELSE than the actual reason for the interview in the first place...like a hobby or interest that wasn't really well known and would generate some better, multi-faceted dialogue - while cliche and fluffy - is probably a better approach. Kudos to Jian for TRYING the overly obvious, subtly suprising, and ego-padding approach...but it didn't work and it's not really all that hard to see why. If we really didn't care about Billy Bob Thornton, we wouldn't be talking about the guy again...would we? How is this guy relevant? Maybe I don't get it yet but I definitely prefer tropical punch.

really? Which parts are holes to you and how do these holes speak for the flipside of the argument?

I'm looking at 8, 9, 11, and 17 as being the days I'm into going to bluesfest for acts I really want to see. Anybody need a date to go dutch?

Thanks for that.