Working towards a new Global Society.

I'm curious about everyone's thoughts on developing a new global society that is centered around growth and prosperity and reaching new technological heights. So long as we live the way we do now with a debt based economy with the poor staying poor and the rich getting richer, our current global society will fail and fall, nor would it be pretty when it happens.

I've been reading some information about Arcologies, Vertical Farming and Resource Based Economy and I really think these three concepts would lead to a better more sustainable global society.

An Arcology is a rather large skyscraper city where people can live, work and play. In some cases, a person may be born and die in an arcology without ever *having* to leave it. Some arguments against arcologies that I've read liken it to a prison or a cage simply because one wouldn't have to leave it, but this assumes people wouldn't leave it by their own free will. Living in an arcology doesn't mean you *have* to stay within it's confines for the remainder of your life, just as people do not *have* to stay within the confines of the city they were born in either. It's a rather weak argument and it's pretty much the only argument against arcologies that I've come across.

There is one design called Ultima Tower, it's a one mile diameter tower that is two miles high. It can house one million residents. Only seven thousand of these towers would be needed to house the entire Earth's population. We have the resources to build these towers, but under our current economic model, we lack the "money" to do so. Which brings me to my next point!

If we moved to a Resource Based Economy, then we could easily build these arcologies. A resource based economy would free up the worlds resources making them equally available to the entire Earth's population to share based upon supply and demand of where those resources are most needed. Rather than governments, nations and corporations hoarding resources and making them scarce and thus profiting on the purposeful scarcity of those resources. This planet has enough resources to sustain a population much greater than what we currently have.

In a resource based economy, one wouldn't get 'paid', no barter or exchange of goods for goods would occur. Currently, I can't find any well thought out plan for a resource base economy, but the concept itself is sound in my opinion and would simply have to be experimented with to see what would work and what wouldn't work. You would simply go into a 'store' a grab a shirt you want, at the 'register' you swipe you card and the resources it took to make that shirt goes into a central database so we know where and how resources are being used so we can better direct where the resources need to go. Or something along those lines. It's a really interesting concept that everyone should look into and research more.

The last concept deals with how to feed these arcologies. With Vertical Farming we can feed fifty thousand people with a single thirty story tall building. As of right now, it's a conceptual idea with no real world practice. Theoretically such farming techniques would work superbly. They would require less water, no soil, and would lead to less diseased crops ensuring a greater healthier harvest. The benefits of moving to such farming techniques are amazing, we could feed more people with less land. This combined with arcologies frees up huge amounts of land for biodiversity and recreational usage and leave room for the human population to grow even more with less impact on our planet compared to what we're doing now with such a tiny population.

So, what's everyone's opinion on developing a more sustainable, global and free society?

Thank you, some great info on the possible. Probably not quite enough by itself to put down the "depopulation" mongers on other threads, but let's hope some stumble upon these ideas, and consider the "possible".

It's actually alarming how many otherwise reasonable people would prefer to wipe out billions of their fellow human beings, based essentially on lies streaming from our masters.

One of the biggest of these lies is the notion of "scarcity". While valid two centuries ago, things have changed some! There is much more abundance than we generally accept. But everywhere we really look, we find tremendous abundance. How few recall that the US still "feeds" much of the world, since we produce it. California alone can produce enough to feed the globe!

Everywhere one looks, there is abundance. But we have been conditioned to see things differently. We may look into a desert, as we drive through at 70 mph, and never notice the immensity of life in every crevice. The oceans, massive...potential!

And then there is the human MIND, and imagination, and will. Alas, even here, the "system" mostly produces rigid thinkers. How many geniuses out there might be capable of what Tesla came up with? But the system plays it's role, and all the best is blunted, shunted, and controlled into what they call "scarcity".

Good luck with this thread, let's hope the trolls stay off for a bit. S & F.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

Thank you, some great info on the possible. Probably not quite enough by itself to put down the "depopulation" mongers on other threads, but let's hope some stumble upon these ideas, and consider the "possible".

Your welcome and I wish I knew enough about all of this to provide a better well thought out post. I'm still learning about these three systems and how they can work together to provide a prosperous life for everyone. It's simply amazing what we could achieve if we worked together rather than against each other.

It's actually alarming how many otherwise reasonable people would prefer to wipe out billions of their fellow human beings, based essentially on lies streaming from our masters.

It really pisses me off when people say we have a population problem, it's simply untrue! What we have is a resource management problem thanks to greedy individuals who would rather let people die than care for them. I like to think of humanity as one big family, and normally, family doesn't charge family unless they're dysfunctional twits.

One of the biggest of these lies is the notion of "scarcity". While valid two centuries ago, things have changed some! There is much more abundance than we generally accept. But everywhere we really look, we find tremendous abundance. How few recall that the US still "feeds" much of the world, since we produce it. California alone can produce enough to feed the globe!

Scarcity coupled with the invention of money is the number one problem causing thing on our planet. The funny thing is, neither one exists as a reality! Scarcity only exists due to purposeful control and hoarding of resources. Money only exist so people can exchange it for those resources. What a piss poor asinine system and world we live in. It boggles my mind that people in this day and age can still be so backwards and barbaric.

Everywhere one looks, there is abundance. But we have been conditioned to see things differently. We may look into a desert, as we drive through at 70 mph, and never notice the immensity of life in every crevice. The oceans, massive...potential!

And then there is the human MIND, and imagination, and will. Alas, even here, the "system" mostly produces rigid thinkers. How many geniuses out there might be capable of what Tesla came up with? But the system plays it's role, and all the best is blunted, shunted, and controlled into what they call "scarcity".

Good luck with this thread, let's hope the trolls stay off for a bit. S & F.

It's amazing how prosperous this one tiny little planet can truly be if we acted together and worked towards that singular goal. I've been trying to explain this concept to another ATS'er in another thread which is what made me decide to start this thread. I'm hoping there are more good people here on ATS that would rather see everyone living a prosperous lifestyle free of homelessness and poverty. There is no reason we should have people dying for stupid reasons because someone is greedy. I think we should make over consumption and greed a criminal offense and inhumane as it leads to the deaths of others.

In this new resource-based economy where nobody gets paid who has the caviar? Where is the motivation to work hard when there is no motivation to work at all?

Although living in a massive tower may sound good on paper, I think it would be hell on earth. It may be nice if you have a window and were at an altitude where opening it would not kill you, but come on. As for vertical farming, it has obviously been dreamt up by a townie who does not understand what farming is.

I would foresee the following in order. Opening the tower. Population and inward migration. Discontent. Riots. Famine. Desertion and abandonment.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi

In this new resource-based economy where nobody gets paid who has the caviar?

Everyone.

Where is the motivation to work hard when there is no motivation to work at all?

I personally think keeping thing's going, to survive, to be prosperous are good motivations to keep working. What keeps a tribal society to continue working to gather resources if they aren't charging members of the tribe for those resources?

Although living in a massive tower may sound good on paper, I think it would be hell on earth.

Can you elaborate more on your concerns as to why it would be 'hell on earth'? An arcology is no different than any other city on Earth. The only minor difference is building upwards rather than outwards leaving more land for future growth. With our current system of outward growth, we'll eventually lose land to live on and would have to make the switch to arcologies anyways. Better to start now than later don't you think?

It may be nice if you have a window and were at an altitude where opening it would not kill you, but come on.

Take a look at the Ultima Tower link, it addresses that issue to the point of allowing the higher altitude floors to still be able to open windows without a problem.

As for vertical farming, it has obviously been dreamt up by a townie who does not understand what farming is.

What is farming if it's not the simple act of growing food? There is nothing that dictates that our produce must be grown on a flat surface, in the soil, and bathed in pesticides or genetically modified. Perhaps you don't understand what farming is?

I would foresee the following in order. Opening the tower. Population and inward migration. Discontent. Riots. Famine. Desertion and abandonment.

Can you explain why at each step more explicitly, how each step would come about in full? If we can address the possible issues now, then we can plan for better before we begin building such a global community.

reply to post by sirnex


On farming vertically, perhaps using hydroponics. I do foresee problems in both practicality and in what could be grown. As a person who has worked on farms and who nearly went to agricultural college (just to indicate that I have some understanding) I would question whether it would be practical to grow the range of foodstuff required – e.g the staples such as wheat, soya or rice, or the fruits and tubers we take for granted. If vertical farming was all about lettuce and tomatoes then that may be practical, but that would just lead to really boring fool and would not sustain the population. I want my food with taste, not some mono cultured, temperature controlled and drip fed bean.

Naturally I won’t ask where the pigs, sheep and cows go to graze, and I won’t ask what you grow on the north facing walls at 3,000 metres, nor what happens when a passing storm removes a few acres of vertically farmed xyz.

On living in “a hell on earth” I would say that building upwards is nuts. There will be people who see no light and everything would feel crowded. I know cities are crowded places, but if you are stuck (for life) in a climate controlled box I suspect the suicide rate would go through the roof.

In this Utopia where a million people co-exist without motivation to work, except the motivation to “do good” I image that the first thing to come apart would be the realisation that man is not motivated to “do good” and that the builders should have considered human psychology in more depth - perhaps starting with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In Maslow’s work we see that man is motivated by many things and “doing good” is not one of them.

So, I see break down of systems and fragmentation of society. Once the building begins to fail through neglect, sabotage by the bored, or just the apathy the vertical farms will start to peel off the walls. With mass discontent and food shortages society's coherence will fail. As in Orwell’s Animal Farm where “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” we will see the rise of the elite and the subjugation of the majority and the “value” of a person’s skills will be recognised. Those who cannot contribute to the whole through the trading of their labour will have to leave or (if society permits) be supported by the whole. The resource based economy would be chucked away.

I am not out to poo poo this whole idea as I think there is merit. However, I would question whether this approach would be best suited to ants or a society of automatons where monotony is relished and encouraged and where the taste of caviar is unknown.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi

On farming vertically, perhaps using hydroponics.

I'm pretty sure that's what a vertical farm uses.

I do foresee problems in both practicality and in what could be grown. As a person who has worked on farms and who nearly went to agricultural college (just to indicate that I have some understanding) I would question whether it would be practical to grow the range of foodstuff required – e.g the staples such as wheat, soya or rice, or the fruits and tubers we take for granted.

A wide range of staples can be grown. A vertical farm is just that, a farm that grows it's produce vertically.

If vertical farming was all about lettuce and tomatoes then that may be practical, but that would just lead to really boring fool and would not sustain the population.

Thankfully that's not what a vertical farm is then! Have you bothered to read the link on vertical farming that I've provided in the OP?

I want my food with taste, not some mono cultured, temperature controlled and drip fed bean.

The food produced would taste just the same. No worries!

Naturally I won’t ask where the pigs, sheep and cows go to graze

On the land that's been freed up from traditional farming techniques that uses insane amounts of land to feed less people than a vertical farm can feed using a smaller footprint. I'm assuming that would be where the animals would graze of course as it seems to make the most logical sense.

and I won’t ask what you grow on the north facing walls at 3,000 metres

Three thousand meters? I'm not sure if your math is right as I've never heard of a three thousand meter building that's thirty stories tall. Did you actually read the OP in full or just skim it?

nor what happens when a passing storm removes a few acres of vertically farmed xyz.

I'm not sure a storm would affect the crops anymore than a storm affects office furniture in a skyscraper.

On living in “a hell on earth” I would say that building upwards is nuts.

I have to disagree there as building outwards with a growing population forces us to use more land in an outward growth. We would lose forests, wildlife, water ways would be polluted quicker, etc. I personally find such activity to be nuts and entirely unsustainable. To continue outward growth we would have to control populations, but who get's to decide who has the right to reproduce on a planet full of abundant resources?

There will be people who see no light and everything would feel crowded.

If you take a look at the Ultima Tower link I provided in the OP, the arcology is not crowded at all and it contains a system to pump natural sunlight into it's interior. It also contains green parks with small lakes at strategic locations within the column of the tower with residential complexes existing along the outer perimeter of the tower overlooking the parks inside and the environment on the outside. I think it would be a remarkably beautiful view!

I know cities are crowded places, but if you are stuck (for life) in a climate controlled box I suspect the suicide rate would go through the roof.

If you read the OP, I addressed this. People would not be stuck in an arcology any more than they are stuck in traditional flat architecture. I've lived in the same city my whole life, it would be no more different than living in an arcology. So what, it's a city built upwards rather than two dimensionally.

In this Utopia where a million people co-exist without motivation to work, except the motivation to “do good” I image that the first thing to come apart would be the realisation that man is not motivated to “do good” and that the builders should have considered human psychology in more depth - perhaps starting with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In Maslow’s work we see that man is motivated by many things and “doing good” is not one of them.

I'm not sure if you know how the pyramid maps work, but the base supports the top. If you read the hierarchy starting at it's proper beginning, the base, your argument falls apart. That's not even considering that the foundation of the theory is poorly thought out and hardly even proven to be true with studies indicating no hierarchy actually exists.

So, I see break down of systems and fragmentation of society. Once the building begins to fail through neglect, sabotage by the bored, or just the apathy the vertical farms will start to peel off the walls.

Regarding your concerns you've addressed, perhaps and only if those concerns were the reality of what's proposed. Since it bears no relation to what's proposed, it makes nothing short but a good science-fiction novel of a despotic future. Thankfully I never proposed such a thing!

With mass discontent and food shortages society's coherence will fail.

With the coming advent of vertical farming and a resource based economy, no one would be discontent or short of food. I'm sure you've noticed the hundreds of thousands that die daily with our current society. Make's one think which type of society would be better!

As in Orwell’s Animal Farm where “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” we will see the rise of the elite and the subjugation of the majority and the “value” of a person’s skills will be recognised. Those who cannot contribute to the whole through the trading of their labour will have to leave or (if society permits) be supported by the whole. The resource based economy would be chucked away.

The move to a resource based economy is also a move away from having everyone work and those who do work for the perpetuation of a prosperous society would not have to work as long or as hard as we currently do today just to survive and make ends meet. Your also making an erroneous assumption that people won't *want* to do anything but sit on their asses.

I am not out to poo poo this whole idea as I think there is merit. However, I would question whether this approach would be best suited to ants or a society of automatons where monotony is relished and encouraged and where the taste of caviar is unknown.

Considering the proposed changes don't involve automatons and monotony, the concern is unfounded and moot to the proposal.

reply to post by sirnex


I have made a few statements why I think this is an unworkable idea and you are analysing every element of my post. I have read the OP (by the way) so continually referring me back to it as a stock answer is not helpful and does not address my points. It gives you the convenient opportunity to dismiss my points out-of-hand, such as

Originally posted by sirnex
Three thousand meters? I'm not sure if your math is right as I've never heard of a three thousand meter building that's thirty stories tall. Did you actually read the OP in full or just skim it?

Well, the Ultima Tower you use as an example is over 10,000 feet tall and this equates to over 3,000 metres, so yes, I am sure of my maths and yes, I did read the article.

Can I turn this around and ask you to actually say why what you suggest will work - in your own words.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi

I have made a few statements why I think this is an unworkable idea and you are analysing every element of my post. I have read the OP (by the way) so continually referring me back to it as a stock answer is not helpful and does not address my points. It gives you the convenient opportunity to dismiss my points out-of-hand, such as

...

Well, the Ultima Tower you use as an example is over 10,000 feet tall and this equates to over 3,000 metres, so yes, I am sure of my maths and yes, I did read the article.

Well, the Ultima Tower is not a vertical farm, so I'm sure your math is incorrect in regards to three thousand meter vertical farm that was never mentioned.

Of course, as you personally did suggest in fact when discussing vertical farms which led me to question whether you read the OP or merely skimmed it.

On farming vertically, perhaps using hydroponics. I do foresee problems in both practicality and in what could be grown. As a person who has worked on farms and who nearly went to agricultural college (just to indicate that I have some understanding) I would question whether it would be practical to grow the range of foodstuff required – e.g the staples such as wheat, soya or rice, or the fruits and tubers we take for granted. If vertical farming was all about lettuce and tomatoes then that may be practical, but that would just lead to really boring fool and would not sustain the population. I want my food with taste, not some mono cultured, temperature controlled and drip fed bean.

Naturally I won’t ask where the pigs, sheep and cows go to graze, and I won’t ask what you grow on the north facing walls at 3,000 metres, nor what happens when a passing storm removes a few acres of vertically farmed xyz.

As you would no doubt recall from the OP:

With Vertical Farming we can feed fifty thousand people with a single thirty story tall building.

No mention of three thousand meter farms were ever mentioned. You either did not read the OP in full, did not comprehend what you were reading, or simply decided to be deceitful in your argument by muddying the points made in the OP.

I'm not trying to attack you, but at least be honest that you made a mistake where a mistake was clearly made and is readily apparent as being made.

Can I turn this around and ask you to actually say why what you suggest will work - in your own words.

Simply because we have the technological capacity and resources to make such advances. It's more beneficial to conserve land for future growth and it's more beneficial to work together towards using available resources in a more sustainable fashion rather than our current throw away societal and economic models.

We have to ability to make such a change and it's not even that drastic of a change, it is more of a change in behavior and society than anything else, one that allows for the entire population to live in prosperity and equality for the benefit and continuation of our species, without war, poverty, starvation, etc. All these bad aspects of civilization don't exist because we're an inherently bad species as a whole, but because our current model brings about these traits. What crimes would exist in a world of abundance and free access to that abundance for all? Who would steal something that can't be stolen? We would track our resources, where they go and where they are needed. We have the ability, we just need the people to bring about such a change.

Nice discussion so far OP. One thing that will always pop up when considering grand possibilities is the "negative" down-side, when Man essentially can still screw up a good idea!

I grew up reading the classic sci-fi authors, back in the day, like Asimov and Robert Silverberg. Both had stories that dealt with your intriguing possibilities. The problem was that they seemed to sense a dystopian aspect to this more efficient future that came out in their story-telling, and perhaps this is what many people will look for, instead of the more positive "possibilities".

I was hoping to emphasize that in my first post, since I felt that was a big part of your intention, but always alongside possibilities, are what people will judge as "probabilities". And the dystopian aspect is certainly legitimate as a concern.

But perhaps we can suspend that sort of judgment just yet, and try and consider that which we do in fact see, even today. How many of us think of a place like Singapore as a type of primordial "Arcology"? And yet, if you consider the situation, it is a place, with few square kilometers, and much vertical real estate. And what else?

Singapore has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world! It also boasts more millionaires per thousand than the mythical "prosperity" of America. No, they don't seem to need to be spread out, and they are very efficient with what they have.

After saying all this, I wouldn't want to minimize the "dystopian" aspect of their society. Most will probably think of "canings" for graffiti, and charge that they are far more educated than the average, etc. But can we perhaps concede Singapore might still be an indication, at least, of something "possible" in our future, that isn't entirely negative??

I suppose someone could charge bias in advocating a type of arcology in the human future. Maybe they are a Londoner? Or New Yorker? They are simply used to living on top of one-another. I am a Westerner, as in, the Western USA. I live on acreage, I love independence, wide open spaces, etc. But this does NOT diminish the idea of MANAGING OUR RESOURCES more prudently! This the OP has emphasized, and I for one think it is quite obvious that this is manifestly reasonable.

"What if", just one state, province, region, or whatever, decided to truly MANAGE whatever they had, to the best of their ability? What might that look like? How irritated would our masters be, that we were providing an example for the world, that contradicted their vicious lie of scarcity?

And then, whatever your opinions might be, perhaps we can balance that with real human lives. It doesn't matter where we live, how poor our economies / societies, If we were committed to honestly being better stewards, would anyone have to die? You depopulators, please realize you are simply doing your master's bidding! You may one day live in a world with fewer people, but as a SLAVE, how will you congratulate yourself?

ABUNDANCE. Think it. Live it. Toss aside the lie of "scarcity" that will one day have you begging for a clean glass of water to drink! Wake up, America, and the world! Our masters have us, between the ears!

Again, great thread OP, keep at it!

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

Nice discussion so far OP. One thing that will always pop up when considering grand possibilities is the "negative" down-side, when Man essentially can still screw up a good idea!

Understandably, some people won't agree with this. Under our current educational regime, societal control and economic model, people are simply unable to comprehend a system of true freedom, free from government, free to learn, free to live, free to work and play, etc.

Our current way of living creates these negative aspects of civilization, not because people are inherently bad in and of themselves, but because the system itself fails the human population as a whole. When you have a system where scarcity is created where scarcity doesn't exist, then people are going to naturally want to obtain that perceived scarce resource and hold onto it like a security blanket.

I grew up reading the classic sci-fi authors, back in the day, like Asimov and Robert Silverberg. Both had stories that dealt with your intriguing possibilities. The problem was that they seemed to sense a dystopian aspect to this more efficient future that came out in their story-telling, and perhaps this is what many people will look for, instead of the more positive "possibilities".

People have to learn to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Too often you will find people quoting a science-fiction story or movie as their source of opinion on reality. We see concepts from stories being used as excuses to not move forward or we watch movies that turn us off from the idea completely when it's portrayed negatively. Fantasy is not reality, it's just a source of entertainment.

I was hoping to emphasize that in my first post, since I felt that was a big part of your intention, but always alongside possibilities, are what people will judge as "probabilities". And the dystopian aspect is certainly legitimate as a concern.

It's not really a legitimate concern in my opinion. There would be no need for theft and other crimes. Not all criminals are criminals because they are bad people. It's society failing them and they in turn lash back out at society. We're too quick to judge and point finger's at the individuals trying to live within a failing system rather than looking at the system itself and understand where it's failing the individuals causing them to act the way they do.

But perhaps we can suspend that sort of judgment just yet, and try and consider that which we do in fact see, even today. How many of us think of a place like Singapore as a type of primordial "Arcology"? And yet, if you consider the situation, it is a place, with few square kilometers, and much vertical real estate. And what else?

Singapore has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world! It also boasts more millionaires per thousand than the mythical "prosperity" of America. No, they don't seem to need to be spread out, and they are very efficient with what they have.

I don't know much about Singapore. Any vertical living space is a primordial arcology, it's the first baby step to full fledged cities int he sky. All an arcology does is make that vertical space more livable, less cramped and hold more people in less space freeing up the land for other uses.

After saying all this, I wouldn't want to minimize the "dystopian" aspect of their society. Most will probably think of "canings" for graffiti, and charge that they are far more educated than the average, etc. But can we perhaps concede Singapore might still be an indication, at least, of something "possible" in our future, that isn't entirely negative??

A change in society for the better, where everyone lives in abundance would negate any chance of a dystopian society. If we continue on the path we are now, we're almost certain to head that way, which is why we need to make this change.

I suppose someone could charge bias in advocating a type of arcology in the human future. Maybe they are a Londoner? Or New Yorker? They are simply used to living on top of one-another. I am a Westerner, as in, the Western USA. I live on acreage, I love independence, wide open spaces, etc. But this does NOT diminish the idea of MANAGING OUR RESOURCES more prudently! This the OP has emphasized, and I for one think it is quite obvious that this is manifestly reasonable.

Building arcologies doesn't inherently mean everyone must live in an arcology. We do not have to house the entire human population within one. I would personally move to one myself for the benefits it would provide. Other people may be more antisocial and wish to live miles apart from one another, and they can if they want.

"What if", just one state, province, region, or whatever, decided to truly MANAGE whatever they had, to the best of their ability? What might that look like? How irritated would our masters be, that we were providing an example for the world, that contradicted their vicious lie of scarcity?

I've been thinking often lately about micro-nations and musing over the idea of starting one up under such a premise.

And then, whatever your opinions might be, perhaps we can balance that with real human lives. It doesn't matter where we live, how poor our economies / societies, If we were committed to honestly being better stewards, would anyone have to die? You depopulators, please realize you are simply doing your master's bidding! You may one day live in a world with fewer people, but as a SLAVE, how will you congratulate yourself?

I could never understand the concept of governmental control. Why would people willfully allow others to control their own lives? Are people simply afraid of self-responsibility or are they just gullible unthinking individuals who don't realize they are slaves to society rather than societies master?

ABUNDANCE. Think it. Live it. Toss aside the lie of "scarcity" that will one day have you begging for a clean glass of water to drink! Wake up, America, and the world! Our masters have us, between the ears!

One thing everyone has to understand, we live on a planet of abundance. This concept of scarcity is a fictitious thing created in a monetary based system to make a profit off your person. We shouldn't 'charge' for the right to live, we should work together in order to live and we have the abundant resources to do so and to grow outwards to other worlds, to perpetuate the human race ensuring future survival!

I was reading about Forest Gardens the other day and I watch a couple of youtube videos about them. It's a really interesting concept, what you're essentially doing is modeling a forest, but using only plants that are edible to humans.

It got me thinking that it would be a great addition to such a new society, especially for those who don't want to live in arcologies. All they're food would be free for the picking and there can even be bamboo's growing around as sustainable construction material.

The arcologies can be for people who want to work and maintain such thing's to keep them from deteriorating and crumbling away. So we are still left with two classes of people, those who contribute to the continuation and development of humanity and those who don't. Those who don't won't get to enjoy the benefits of living inside an arcology. They still get taken care of necessity wise so they're never homeless or hungry, but if they want to enjoy the benefits of society, then they must work and participate in society rather than sitting on their asses greedily consuming resources without contributing back to society.

I think that's a pretty decent plan as it forces people to work if they want more than just the basic necessities.

reply to post by sirnex



"...the dystopian aspect is certainly legitimate as a concern."

It's not really a legitimate concern in my opinion. There would be no need for theft and other crimes. Not all criminals are criminals because they are bad people. It's society failing them and they in turn lash back out at society. We're too quick to judge and point finger's at the individuals trying to live within a failing system rather than looking at the system itself and understand where it's failing the individuals causing them to act the way they do.

You certainly make a good point about our current state of affairs. Much of the crime we see, is no doubt a failure of the system, more than anything else. A famous real-life example of this very thing can be identified with one word: "Projects". As in the heavily subsidized buildings built for ghetto inhabitants, which have certainly hurt Black America, far more than they ever helped.

Hopefully there is some irony coming out here, but I do think that there is real concern to be had, not so much because of any particular flaws in the initial noble ideas, but because people are always people, and there is a fair amount of "bad" in people, and probably always will be.

So, for example, you mentioned "theft", in particular. Does there always have to be a "need" for theft to occur? Hardly. The biggest and boldest thieves that history has ever seen are wealthy beyond imagining. And yet they steal, and even kill, relentlessly. More importantly, these very same "criminals" seem to be in charge of the world at the moment.

For this practical reason alone, that is, the fact that wealthy and powerful criminals seem to run the world, again, this alone should make us quite leery. Obviously, many believe that these same people do in fact have a "utopia" planned already, and some will say it's around the corner. But, their utopia, will be our dystopia, if they have their way.

I'm actually surprised you haven't had more interest in your thread. I thought for sure you were going to get a big healthy dose of the "down-side", it is ATS after all. Perhaps people who would see too much "Agenda 21" in a plan with arcologies as a centerpiece, with corresponding "people-free" zones implied.

Well, you might still get some of that negative, because with one of your recent comments, you may have revealed too much about your feelings...

if they want to enjoy the benefits of society, then they must work and participate in society rather than sitting on their asses greedily consuming resources without contributing back to society.

I think that's a pretty decent plan as it forces people to work if they want more than just the basic necessities.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way. I think I see what you're getting at. But, forgive me, does what you're saying sound a bit too "communist" perhaps? Sure, it might be nice if everyone could be productive, we might like that they could try and use their talents for the greater benefit, but again, the Manifesto puts it not very differently, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."

I guess if we didn't already know how those big communist social experiments turned out, we might justifiably hold out more hope. But even in your choice of words, "forces"...what's going on with that?

I have no doubt that "your" decent plan would be fine, but I also have no doubt that you would not be running the show. It would be the usual people doing that. Those ruthless enough to do so. And what might THEIR idea be about the "basic necessities", as you put it? History tells us that their idea of "basic", was the concentration camp. A sobering thing to consider.

Last thing. You're right I think in your righteous indignation at those who are...

sitting on their asses greedily consuming resources without contributing back to society.

But it's precisely these kinds of people who run the world. They enjoy tremendous power, and have absolutely no temptation of ever giving it up. No, perhaps the English royals don't "contribute" much, and obviously "consume" far more than could reasonably be justified. But the reality is that they are largely "supported". Most English seem to enjoy their Queen, and it seems that all of Europe is always fixated on whatever the nobility is up to.

Human nature. That's the thing that get's us every time.

Arcologies? Could be something positive one day. But, it would be imprudent to ignore the huge baggage that is the human race.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

You certainly make a good point about our current state of affairs. Much of the crime we see, is no doubt a failure of the system, more than anything else. A famous real-life example of this very thing can be identified with one word: "Projects". As in the heavily subsidized buildings built for ghetto inhabitants, which have certainly hurt Black America, far more than they ever helped.

The only reason we have slum area's is due to money issue's. With the continuation of money, we will always have a continuation of poor, starving, and crime.

Hopefully there is some irony coming out here, but I do think that there is real concern to be had, not so much because of any particular flaws in the initial noble ideas, but because people are always people, and there is a fair amount of "bad" in people, and probably always will be.

True, there are always "bad" people, but we need to understand what makes them bad. People aren't born inherently "bad" or "evil" and so long as we shun them, then we'll never get rid of them. Every human is born the same, our personalities are partly genetic and in my opinion at least, mostly nurturing. This nurturing aspect doesn't necessarily mean parenting, it also include societal factors and personal experiences of how society as a whole is perceived to the person.

So, for example, you mentioned "theft", in particular. Does there always have to be a "need" for theft to occur? Hardly. The biggest and boldest thieves that history has ever seen are wealthy beyond imagining. And yet they steal, and even kill, relentlessly. More importantly, these very same "criminals" seem to be in charge of the world at the moment.

Good point, but there is a good reason for the wealthy to steal. For example, some wealthy people might steal art, the reason for that is that expensive art is rare and not always up for sale. No matter how much money the wealthy person may have, not for sale means not for sale. In turn, they might steal it or have it stolen to add to their private collection.

In a resource based economy, such rarities would be non existent. I would imagine a system set up where a work of art or anything else of the sort would be mass produced to those who desire it. There would simply be no need to steal it. Even precious gems can be mass produced nowadays, with such technology at our disposal, we wouldn't have to even rape the earth for these gems.

For this practical reason alone, that is, the fact that wealthy and powerful criminals seem to run the world, again, this alone should make us quite leery. Obviously, many believe that these same people do in fact have a "utopia" planned already, and some will say it's around the corner. But, their utopia, will be our dystopia, if they have their way.

They are the few and we are the many. I don't know what else to say about it. If we allow it to happen that way, then are they really the one's to blame or are we? No one rules over you unless you allow them to.

I'm actually surprised you haven't had more interest in your thread. I thought for sure you were going to get a big healthy dose of the "down-side", it is ATS after all. Perhaps people who would see too much "Agenda 21" in a plan with arcologies as a centerpiece, with corresponding "people-free" zones implied.

I'm surprised to, I figured this would be a fun thread with ideas being thrown about. Maybe ATS members aren't ready for such a concept?

Well, you might still get some of that negative, because with one of your recent comments, you may have revealed too much about your feelings...

if they want to enjoy the benefits of society, then they must work and participate in society rather than sitting on their asses greedily consuming resources without contributing back to society.

I think that's a pretty decent plan as it forces people to work if they want more than just the basic necessities.

I hope you won't take this the wrong way. I think I see what you're getting at. But, forgive me, does what you're saying sound a bit too "communist" perhaps? Sure, it might be nice if everyone could be productive, we might like that they could try and use their talents for the greater benefit, but again, the Manifesto puts it not very differently, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."

I don't personally know much about communism, so I don't know. From my perspective it makes perfect sense. Regardless of the abundance of the planets resources, it's still a finite amount. Nor do I believe people should be free to make use of the non-renewable resources without contributing to society. It's simply unfair that someone does nothing and get's everything compared to someone who does something and get's everything as well.

If someone wants the non-necessities then they simply just participate in society to get them. They do work to contribute to the continuation of products, services, resource gathering, etc. Without that work being performed then none of those thing's would exist. The only way to get that work done is to create incentive to have it done. That incentive would be the ability to get non-necessities.

People wouldn't even have to work *all* the time if they didn't want. Six months here, six months there, less or more, it wouldn't matter. There's plenty of people and plenty of resources. Even if all people stopped working, setting up thing's like food forests around the planet would ensure a steady supply of food for the human population. Even if we didn't have non-necessities being made, our necessities would still be met. It's just basic resource management.

I guess if we didn't already know how those big communist social experiments turned out, we might justifiably hold out more hope. But even in your choice of words, "forces"...what's going on with that?

I didn't mean that in the way that someone will force people to work. What I meant by force's is that if someone wants something they desire that is not necessary to survival, like an ipod, then they would have to work, make some contribution to society before they can get that ipod. Necessities are free, non-necessities require work.

I have no doubt that "your" decent plan would be fine, but I also have no doubt that you would not be running the show. It would be the usual people doing that. Those ruthless enough to do so. And what might THEIR idea be about the "basic necessities", as you put it? History tells us that their idea of "basic", was the concentration camp. A sobering thing to consider.

Why would we need anyone 'running the show'? We have computers... Some simple automation programs and systems would keep track of resources and determine where those resources are most needed to ensure an even distribution of resources across the planet. Since the world would be resource based, that's the only form of control we would need.

Basic necessities are just that... basic. Food, water, shelter, energy, and clothing. Those things would be provided for free. Thing's like television, cars, ipods, etc. are not necessities and thus require contribution to society in order to get those thing's.

Last thing. You're right I think in your righteous indignation at those who are...

sitting on their asses greedily consuming resources without contributing back to society.

But it's precisely these kinds of people who run the world. They enjoy tremendous power, and have absolutely no temptation of ever giving it up. No, perhaps the English royals don't "contribute" much, and obviously "consume" far more than could reasonably be justified. But the reality is that they are largely "supported". Most English seem to enjoy their Queen, and it seems that all of Europe is always fixated on whatever the nobility is up to.

Again, we are the many and they are the few. "They" only control us because we allow them to do so. "They" are also us, born like us, grew up like us. The only difference between us and "them" is that "they" decided to become "them" to have a say over how society runs. We voted for "them" to represent "us" and now we complain about "them".

Human nature. That's the thing that get's us every time.

There is no such thing as human nature. There is human behavior, and behavior can always change.

Arcologies? Could be something positive one day. But, it would be imprudent to ignore the huge baggage that is the human race.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people themselves. It's society and money that is the problem and if we can ever move away from that, there would be no "baggage" issues.

Sirnex,

I sincerly applaud you for your concept of a brave new world. Going vertical and better management of our resources is vital and critical for future generations to come.

One consideration would be the evolution of technology to take into account better construction methods and material to stay vertical even in earthquakes, hurricanes, and other adverse weather elements.

Secondly, we would need to study into the waste generated by such constructions as it will be massive and find out how it can be recycled back to use - management of our resources.

Thirdly, it will be the social impact upon each other living in such close proximities. No 2 humans are the same, and when newer immigrants arrives with different cultures, such proximities will ensure clashes now and then.

Thus it must be avoided at cost, and it can be done through the motivation of common needs ALL humans shares and aspires - equality, justice, progress and prosperity. A new mindset will have to be incalcated into habitues of such programmes so that all may live in peace.

Fourthly, as there may be limited jobs within such areas, there will always be need for job creation. Factories, like farms, too can be stacked vertical, as our current tech allows us to refine better emission and safer standards.

Once we go vertical, it would mean more valuable land that can be harvested and mined for resources or holiday resorts for workers. And in democracies, the People owns the land, not some rich corrupt feudal lord as in our past, whose poor management and selfish use of resources had led to the current issues of strife and chaos in our world.

With better management of resources, in turn it would generate profits for the democratic State, which can use such resources for social expenditure, expand job creation and exploration of space, where our ultimate destiny lays.

These are achievable and noble aspirations we MUST work towards, if we are to evolve, instead of spending trillions killing brothers and hating each other....

Thanks for your post, and may more share your view, enough that action does take place.

Good luck!

reply to post by sirnex


I dont understand your bashing of monetary economy when your proposal has camouflaged full monetary economy inside:

If someone wants the non-necessities then they simply just participate in society to get them. They do work to contribute to the continuation of products, services, resource gathering, etc. Without that work being performed then none of those thing's would exist. The only way to get that work done is to create incentive to have it done. That incentive would be the ability to get non-necessities.

So you must measure how much work has an individual done and store it in some variable.

I didn't mean that in the way that someone will force people to work. What I meant by force's is that if someone wants something they desire that is not necessary to survival, like an ipod, then they would have to work, make some contribution to society before they can get that ipod. Necessities are free, non-necessities require work.

If someone wants a non-necessity, he will get it only if he has non-zero value in the above variable (has worked), and the variable will decrease accordingly - linking past work with entitlement to present resources - one function of money.
If someone wants a specific non-necessity and does not want to work (or cannot), he can sell his non-necessities to someone who has a non-zero variable for less than it would cost him to get them from the system, and the person with non-zero variable will get the specific non-necessity for him. Thus, variables will work exactly like currency, facilitating exchange - another function of money. Unless you want to go totalitarian and forbid said behaviour...
I can show you how borrowing currency (variables) with interest would work in your system, and would be reasoneble in many situations, if you want.

Basic necessities are just that... basic. Food, water, shelter, energy, and clothing. Those things would be provided for free. Thing's like television, cars, ipods, etc. are not necessities and thus require contribution to society in order to get those thing's.

This is equivalent to monetary economy with universal basic income.

There is no such thing as human nature. There is human behavior, and behavior can always change.

Human behaviour can change, but I doubt any social engineering is able to change it the right way. People are surely also greedy because of the system, but system which we have now could have never arisen if people were not at least a bit inherently greedy in the first place. And yes, its partly genetics - there were surely many situations in our evolutionary past when being greedy was an advantage to passing your genome than being cooperative and generous.

reply to post by Maslo

So you must measure how much work has an individual done and store it in some variable.

Not at all. Necessities are freely available. Luxuries, such as a 60 inch LCD HDTV would require participation of some form in which to produce a 60 inch LCD HDTV. Sitting on one's collective asses is not going to make a 60 inch LCD HDTV appear out of thin air, is it?

If someone wants a non-necessity, he will get it only if he has non-zero value in the above variable (has worked), and the variable will decrease accordingly - linking past work with entitlement to present resources - one function of money.

I can think of no better system, because as I mentioned, sitting on one's ass simply won't make non-necessities appear out of thin air. We could instead do away with all non essentials and simply subside freely on what is freely available.

If someone wants a specific non-necessity and does not want to work (or cannot), he can sell his non-necessities to someone who has a non-zero variable for less than it would cost him to get them from the system, and the person with non-zero variable will get the specific non-necessity for him. Thus, variables will work exactly like currency, facilitating exchange - another function of money.

If one does not work one would not have a non-necessity in which to "sell" for a different non-necessity. If the whole population does not work, no luxuries would get produced, yet all would still have necessities provided for.

Unless you want to go totalitarian and forbid said behaviour...

There is no need for that as the system as far as I can personally see has no need for something so drastic. You are the one still thinking in terms of monetary exchanges in order to procure anything at all.

I can show you how borrowing currency (variables) with interest would work in your system, and would be reasoneble in many situations, if you want.

I would actually like to see that. How does one exchange a freely available resource for a luxury that requires work to be built? How does one who refrains from working acquire a luxury in which to trade for a different luxury? How doe s a luxury get produced in which to be used as barter if no one produces said luxury?

This is equivalent to monetary economy with universal basic income.

No, far from it. Basic income is just that... a basic income provided that can be used for non necessities if one so desired. Freely making available all thing that are intimately essential to human life is insanely different from such a concept. You're simply too stuck into the must exchange shiny metal and small slips of paper to see that distinction.

Human behaviour can change, but I doubt any social engineering is able to change it the right way. People are surely also greedy because of the system, but system which we have now could have never arisen if people were not at least a bit inherently greedy in the first place. And yes, its partly genetics - there were surely many situations in our evolutionary past when being greedy was an advantage to passing your genome than being cooperative and generous.

The biggest reason for war is over resources. Think it over.

reply to post by sirnex

Not at all. Necessities are freely available.

I understand, my example only concerned non-necessity commodities which are not freely available under your example, but require previous work.

Luxuries, such as a 60 inch LCD HDTV would require participation of some form in which to produce a 60 inch LCD HDTV.

So if someone knows absolutely nothing about making LCDs, he cannot have one, because he cannot participate in any way in its production? You must have some way to exchange your work for others work. I have proposed one - work variables.

I can think of no better system, because as I mentioned, sitting on one's ass simply won't make non-necessities appear out of thin air. We could instead do away with all non essentials and simply subside freely on what is freely available.

So do you agree with my "work variable" system? Its important to know how exactly would you connect previous work of an individual to entitlement to non-necessities, otherwise we are getting nowhere and just arguing over non-concrete word salad. I would use it unless you say otherwise and show me different system.

If one does not work one would not have a non-necessity in which to "sell" for a different non-necessity.

Lets say he worked in the distant past to get them, but now he doesnt work and all his work variables have been spent on said non-neccesities.

If the whole population does not work, no luxuries would get produced, yet all would still have necessities provided for.

How? Health care, for example, is not a necessity in your system? (is a non-necessity - requires previous work - work variables to get?). Because I cannot imagine working healthcare without human work. We are not that far yet.

You are the one still thinking in terms of monetary exchanges in order to procure anything at all.

I am not, everything I write about now is happening under your system as you define it. Just specify it more concretely, your definitions are vague.

How does one exchange a freely available resource for a luxury that requires work to be built?

He doesnt, I have never said that. What is free cannot be traded or used as a currency. But you have clearly said that not everything under your system is free. Non-neccesities are not free, they require previous work (work variables) to get. My example was only about them:

If someone wants a specific non-necessity and does not want to work nad has 0 work variable, he can sell his non-necessities to someone who has a non-zero variable for less than it would cost him to get them from the system, and the person with non-zero variable will get the specific non-necessity for him. Thus, variables will work exactly like currency, facilitating exchange - another function of money.

How does one who refrains from working acquire a luxury in which to trade for a different luxury?

Maybe he worked in the distant past, and now has only the luxury to trade, but no more entitlement to more luxuries to get (0 work variables, because he spent them on that luxury).

How doe s a luxury get produced in which to be used as barter if no one produces said luxury?

Someone had to produce it in the past, thats irrelevant for the example.

No, far from it. Basic income is just that... a basic income provided that can be used for non necessities if one so desired. Freely making available all thing that are intimately essential to human life is insanely different from such a concept.

In reality, their effect on individuals and society would be the same. Any sufficiently high basic income (compared to price of necessities) is in practice equivalent to "freely making available all thing that are intimately essential to human life". When you in addition restrict basic income to some special currency which can buy only necessities, then its exactly the same.

You're simply too stuck into the must exchange shiny metal and small slips of paper to see that distinction.

You are simply too blinded to see that in order to couple previous work of an individual with current entitlement to non-necessities, you must have currency in some form, doesnt matter if you call it "work variables" or "blue elephants", or deny its existence. It must be there, otherwise the coupling would not work.

The biggest reason for war is over resources. Think it over.

That is true (also human ignorance and religious zeal). Not money, resources, which are limited. I have never said otherwise.

reply to post by Maslo

I understand, my example only concerned non-necessity commodities which are not freely available under your example, but require previous work.

Obviously work would be required to produce something that is not provided for by the natural world.

So if someone knows absolutely nothing about making LCDs, he cannot have one, because he cannot participate in any way in its production? You must have some way to exchange your work for others work. I have proposed one - work variables.

That is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. I know nothing about making LCD screens, let alone fully working television sets, and yet I can still get into the industry at the entry level and learn every facet of HDTV production.

So do you agree with my "work variable" system? Its important to know how exactly would you connect previous work of an individual to entitlement to non-necessities, otherwise we are getting nowhere and just arguing over non-concrete word salad. I would use it unless you say otherwise and show me different system.

So long as one participates in the production of luxury items one should be free to enjoy luxury items. If one does not wish to participate in luxury item production, then one would not have free access to luxury items.

Lets say he worked in the distant past to get them, but now he doesnt work and all his work variables have been spent on said non-neccesities.

Who would he sell to? Someone who has never worked? Someone who does work and can already obtain those items freely? The only way such exchange you are describing would work would be between two people who previously worked, obtained luxury items, and then stopped working.

People whom never worked would have nothing to exchange as basic necessities are free to the person wishing to exchange the luxury item. People who do work would have no need to exchange with the person who doesn't work as that luxury item would already be free to them. If two people whom no longer work wish to exchange luxury items out of shear boredom of the items in question, then I see no problem with that.

How? Health care, for example, is not a necessity in your system? (is a non-necessity - requires previous work - work variables to get?). Because I cannot imagine working healthcare without human work. We are not that far yet.

No, healthcare is not a necessity. One's own health and well being is one's own personal responsibility. If one leads a healthy lifestyle one will remain healthy into old age and die of natural causes. If one leads a risky lifestyle and does not take great care with their life, then that is of their own doing. The natural world provides all the medicines we need should we get sick or hurt. Nearly every synthetic compound prescribed by the pharmaceutical companies are derived from naturally occurring compounds found in plants and animals.

I am not, everything I write about now is happening under your system as you define it. Just specify it more concretely, your definitions are vague.

What's so vague about it specifically? You work towards the betterment of society you enjoy the fruits of that labor, you decide not to work at all then at least the basic necessities are still freely available for you to live a healthy lifestyle.

If someone wants a specific non-necessity and does not want to work nad has 0 work variable, he can sell his non-necessities to someone who has a non-zero variable for less than it would cost him to get them from the system, and the person with non-zero variable will get the specific non-necessity for him. Thus, variables will work exactly like currency, facilitating exchange - another function of money.

And you're telling me you're not still thinking in terms of monetary exchange? You've personally defined personal work as a monetary unit and then arbitrarily decided to attach a value of storage that can be exchanged for an item or between two people. *YOU* work, *YOU* receive. You can't exchange your work under someone else name. If you want to exchange items, I see no problem with that as the work to acquire items has already been done.

Maybe he worked in the distant past, and now has only the luxury to trade, but no more entitlement to more luxuries to get (0 work variables, because he spent them on that luxury).

I don't understand where or how you got the idea that work would be stored as a variable which would be used to give value to an item and that the item would cost x amount of work.

Someone had to produce it in the past, thats irrelevant for the example.

OK

In reality, their effect on individuals and society would be the same. Any sufficiently high basic income (compared to price of necessities) is in practice equivalent to "freely making available all thing that are intimately essential to human life". When you in addition restrict basic income to some special currency which can buy only necessities, then its exactly the same.

Not so. Say that basic income was all used up to buy oranges for the month. The following week after doing so you decide you want apples. Crap... you spent your income on oranges and can now not obtain apples.

You are simply too blinded to see that in order to couple previous work of an individual with current entitlement to non-necessities, you must have currency in some form, doesnt matter if you call it "work variables" or "blue elephants", or deny its existence. It must be there, otherwise the coupling would not work.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you and I again feel that we need to bring up the discussion of tribal societies as a prime example that monetary exchange is simply not a necessity within a functioning society.

That is true (also human ignorance and religious zeal). Not money, resources, which are limited. I have never said otherwise.

Would you agree that making the basic necessities for human life freely available be a big step forward in changing human behavior in the right direction?

reply to post by sirnex

So long as one participates in the production of luxury items one should be free to enjoy luxury items. If one does not wish to participate in luxury item production, then one would not have free access to luxury items.

I don't understand where or how you got the idea that work would be stored as a variable which would be used to give value to an item and that the item would cost x amount of work.

Now I understand. As long as you work somewhere, does not matter how important, hard, or productive work it is for the society or, most importantly, how long you work there, every luxury item, regardless of resources needed to build it is freely available to you. All jobs and all luxury items are equal.
Dont you see the obvious potential of abuse here? Lets say someone lazy wants a private jet. He enlists in some easy job, gets the jet, then quits. Screw the system.
Arbitrary forcing all jobs as equal, regardless of their contribution to wellbeing of the society, and arbitrary forcing all items as equal, regardless of the resources needed to manufacture them is the ultimate form of demotivation to work harder and ultimate motivation to waste resources. It would not work for the advancement of mankind, but the other way around. We have real word empirical proof of that - compare the practical results of socialistic economy with results of capitalism - all jobs were not even equal, but the differences between wages were not big or enough to justify working harder, all items were too even not fully equal, altrough price spectrum was much more uniform than in current capitalism, work was too mandatory to get more than basic needs, actually if they found out you deliberately try to not work, you could be jailed - incentive to work was therefore even bigger than in your system - and after 40 years, the system collapsed on itself and the difference in average standard of living and inovation, and all measures of advancement of society was WAY lower than in capitalism. Because people simply hadnt worked enough, they were not forced or motivated to do so. My relatives told me stories about socialist work - 4 hours a day, the rest was practically rest The same, even more, will happen under your system.

No, healthcare is not a necessity. One's own health and well being is one's own personal responsibility. If one leads a healthy lifestyle one will remain healthy into old age and die of natural causes. If one leads a risky lifestyle and does not take great care with their life, then that is of their own doing.

I would rather live under socialism than under a system that does not get someone at least basic and lifesaving healthcare for free when needed, regardless if he works or not. That should be a basic human right. Saying that you wont get ill if you lead a healthy lifestyle is really ignorant (ever heard of for example cancer or appendicitis?).

The natural world provides all the medicines we need should we get sick or hurt. Nearly every synthetic compound prescribed by the pharmaceutical companies are derived from naturally occurring compounds found in plants and animals.

I dont understand the relevance of this. Should I eat plants when my appendix hurts? Or should I study last-minute DIY self-operations guide because noone around currently produces "luxury item" of appendix operations?
Just to get back to the original point - healthcare cannot work in the absence of human workers. Forget it.

Not so. Say that basic income was all used up to buy oranges for the month. The following week after doing so you decide you want apples. Crap... you spent your income on oranges and can now not obtain apples.

How many apples and oranges do you need? Unless you buy tons of them, the basic income would be enough. If you buy so much oranges that you cannot buy anything else, then its justified you cannot have more fruits - we dont want people wasting resources, thats the point and ADVANTAGE of BI over RBE. In your example, you have wasted tons of fruit (worth of entire basic income) simply because you can, and then decide to buy another mass of fruits, simply because you can. Talk about efficient resource allocation You consider inability to waste unlimited amount resources an advantage, I consider it a disadvantage. Resources are limited.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you and I again feel that we need to bring up the discussion of tribal societies as a prime example that monetary exchange is simply not a necessity within a functioning society.

Tribal societies work because if you dont work for the tribe and abuse others, then you will get expelled.. Also, everyone knows everyone else, so its easy to track contributors and resource sinkers even without currency.

Would you agree that making the basic necessities for human life freely available be a big step forward in changing human behavior in the right direction?

Nothing which requires human work or other limited resources to appear is or can be made free without limit. But I agree that making the basic necessities for human life (including healthcare!) available for everyone in quantities which wont lead to abuse and wasting of resources would be a big step forward in changing human behavior in the right direction, and it would not potentially compromise efficient resource usage by lazy, selfish, and greedy people, compared to your system.