Would it be possible.......

paddyandy

O.P. As long as the Feelgood factor lasts .

ScumLord

bogwalrus wrote: »

a little from column A, a little from column B

A friend of mine once asked me if there can be a commune in a city, maybe in a high rise apartment block or something. Funnily enough i dismissed it as my idea of a commune was just a bunch of people who didn't wash out in a field. When you think about it then you find there can be a sort of model.

This is basically a basic version of a zeitgeist city which is almost totally self sufficient. They produce all their own food, all their own power and even can manufacture most of the goods that they'd need.

One waste charge

One mans waste is another mans power. All biological waste can be broken down into gas and fertilizer. The gas can be used to heat the building and run a gas turbine for power. Any other waste can be recycled. The fertilizer would be used to grow more food which creates a cycle of growth, decay, power, fertilizer which leads to more food production. It would drastically reduce the waste the building produces to practically nil.

Maybe a communal roof garden/veg patch

That would at best be a hobby, your not going to feed the building from a roof top garden, if you get to build the building from scratch you can turn the outside into vertical gardens giving you a pretty large growing surface. They have plans to build grow skyscrappers in New York, they reckon 14 of them would feed all of New York. They would be enclosed ecosystems which would mean you could grow any food you want even tropical fruits.

All these individuals then have skills that can help eachother. Maybe apartment 12 are insurance brokers, apartment 18 are accountants, apartment 22 is a doctor, Apartment 30 are a bunch of stoners but manage the roof garden very well and drop a box of veg on each door every month.

Pretty useless skills from a piratical point of view. What they'd need is engineers, mechanical and electrical so they can service all the buildings needs. It's not difficult to learn these things but having a good understanding of what they're doing would mean they're not going on the internet for information every time something new pops up. Paying for outside skilled people to Service the building would be a substantial cost.

The Obvious problem with communism is People but I find people are getting better in sorting out issues and once individuals can have their privacy (as in their own abode) then there should be no problem.

Big business has actually developed many excellent techniques for getting people to work together efficiently. It's actually business practice now not to blame individual workers for mistakes but the systems that allowed the mistake to happen.

Water can be collected and recycled in house.

If these systems are well planed and laid out they can run themselves with minimum effort, if you can buy the building outright rather than rent you eliminated your electricity costs, waste charges, water charges and heating costs. The major investment for the occupants would be their time in maintaining the building. Everything would be provided and you wouldn't need to be in a job just to make ends meet. You could do what you loved doing and any money you made out of it would be a bonus.

crazy cabbage

kincsem wrote: »

You mention barter. When I gave suggestions where barter would not work you changed to "you don't understand, it's not barter, you just ask for what you want and you are given it. I said "I want a Ferrari". You said "You don't need a Ferrari". So people who produce quality goods are deciding who gets them.
You want people working and producing give to other people who may, or may not produce, and may or may not give those goods free to anyone who asks.

I never said anything about bartering. The op did. I dont think bartering will work.

No one said that you cant have a ferrari so dont put words in my mouth. I asked you why do you want a ferrari. There is a difference.
And as someone else said if you want to come together as a community to build a ferrari more power to ye. No objections there.

Idely people who produce high end products would give to people and communities who need them (plus i would think that most of the process is autamated).

And people who do not do anything. I dont see room for them in this society (well aside from the yound and old). I know that seem harsh but there is no reason to be lazy. You can do anything you want so why wouldn't you do something? And it doesn't have to be 40hours weeks like it is currently. It would be alot less than that i would think.

GarIT

I don't see why so many people see money as bad. It allows people who put an effort in to be rewarded.

People say material possessions are bad, but why? The more material possessions I get the happier I become, theres no way I would want to give that up for not benifit to myself.

Without money there would be no Africa by now. People in Africa are starving and they only reason they have the little that they have is diamonds and gold. If materials like diamonds and gold had no value Africa would have nothing, food will never grow in Africa, its climate wont change, everyone in africa would die.

ScumLord

crazy cabbage wrote: »

And people who do not do anything. I dont see room for them in this society (well aside from the yound and old). I know that seem harsh but there is no reason to be lazy. You can do anything you want so why wouldn't you do something? And it doesn't have to be 40hours weeks like it is currently. It would be alot less than that i would think.

I wouldn't exclude any body. From a farmers point of view a writer could be doing nothing for five years but could then go on to write something profound that influences a lot of people. I say let people live their lives if they want to do nothing with that chance that's their own problem. In a society of abundance where people don't have to do anything we could find that a sizeable proportion of people spend their lives simply educating themselves and not achieving anything other than a fulfilled life. At the moment the majority of people don't achieve anything profound with their lives they just waste them away in the pursuit of money so they can simply survive.

GarIT wrote: »

Without money there would be no Africa by now. People in Africa are starving and they only reason they have the little that they have is diamonds and gold. If materials like diamonds and gold had no value Africa would have nothing, food will never grow in Africa, its climate wont change, everyone in africa would die.

That's not true at all. Many of the metals and minerals we use in our advanced electronics come from Africa. Africa has a bounty of resources that the west is simply plundering through child labour with the locals getting only a tiny percentage of it's actual worth.

Africa is also well able to produce vast quantities of food the local people producing it simply can't afford it and it's exported. Africa has every climate inside it's vastness not just barren deserts.

GarIT

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not true at all. Many of the metals and minerals we use in our advanced electronics come from Africa. Africa has a bounty of resources that the west is simply plundering through child labour with the locals getting only a tiny percentage of it's actual worth.

Africa is also well able to produce vast quantities of food the local people producing it simply can't afford it and it's exported. Africa has every climate inside it's vastness not just barren deserts.

You can extend it to other minerals but they still have no value. Theres no way Africa could sustain itself. Parts of Africa would survive but the majority wont, unless they spent billions in irrigation. Central and northern aftica could go a whole year without rain, all they can grow is cactus if they cant gaurentee the water flow.

ScumLord

GarIT wrote: »

You can extend it to other minerals but they still have no value.

They do have value because we need them to produce the goods we need.

Theres no way Africa could sustain itself.

Of course it can, it's a massive country, if you go to southern Spain they have water problems yet can turn around 3 crops a year. The benefit of growing where the sun is usually outweighs the problems of getting water there.

Parts of Africa would survive but the majority wont, unless they spent billions in irrigation.

That's a money problem again. What your saying is it can be done there just isn't the money to make it happen.

Central and northern aftica could go a whole year without rain, all they can grow is cactus if they cant gaurentee the water flow.

There are ways around every problem but you do have to be smart about where you base human colony's. If you can't support a population locally, build where you can. Africa has population explosions and most population explosions are down to ignorance.

WumBuster

No, I think legal tender/money is the best system we have, even if its not perfect by any means. The thing about what is mentioned in the op, is while in an ideal world it would make sense but we dont live in an ideal world.People are people and we all have different needs, goals, abilities, ambitions and values. The free market allows people the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives, whether it be a multi millionaire creating jobs or a street bum.

We've seen with the communist regimes, where they tried to make everyone be ''the same'', it didnt work only causing misery, suffering, poverty and paranoia. You just cant control people to that extent. And yes there will always be greedy people who will try and con and steal, no matter what type of society is there, so no, you're suggestion would never work in all reality.

ScumLord

WumBuster wrote: »

No, I think legal tender/money is the best system we have, even if its not perfect by any means. The thing about what is mentioned in the op, is while in an ideal world it would make sense but we dont live in an ideal world.People are people and we all have different needs, goals, abilities, ambitions and values. The free market allows people the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives, whether it be a multi millionaire creating jobs or a street bum.

I don't see how it gives you the freedom to do what you want, unless you have unlimited money and don't need to earn any more, as the saying goes, it takes money to make money. Being in a capitalist system doesn't give you much freedom at all. You might say if you earned he money you can spend it freely but if you can't earn the money you have no freedom. Your also locked into jobs and career paths just to survive making further education difficult.

All the free market does is allow multinationals free reign on smaller economies wiping out local industry and commerce as they can't compete with giants. If anything we're going to end up with all commerce controlled by a minority.

We've seen with the communist regimes, where they tried to make everyone be ''the same'', it didnt work only causing misery, suffering, poverty and paranoia. You just cant control people to that extent. And yes there will always be greedy people who will try and con and steal, no matter what type of society is there, so no, you're suggestion would never work in all reality.

Again your assuming there's only two systems. Capitalism and the failed communism. There have been many other systems and there are other system being used right now that work in their own right.

WumBuster

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how it gives you the freedom to do what you want, unless you have unlimited money and don't need to earn any more, as the saying goes, it takes money to make money. Being in a capitalist system doesn't give you much freedom at all. You might say if you earned he money you can spend it freely but if you can't earn the money you have no freedom. Your also locked into jobs and career paths just to survive making further education difficult.

All the free market does is allow multinationals free reign on smaller economies wiping out local industry and commerce as they can't compete with giants. If anything we're going to end up with all commerce controlled by a minority.

Of course it does. Well of course you cant exactly do everything you want to in life, but Richard Branson? Warren Buffet? JP McManus? I dont think any of these guys started out with huge pools of money. And if they were in a communist society they'd be forced to hand the money over that they earned, or actually they wouldnt be allowed earn it in the first place. Thats the beauty of free market and capitalism. If you are willing, to work hard, take risks and be innovative, the sky is the limit. Of course i acknowledge there is a dark side to capitalism as well, but no pain, no gain.

ScumLord

WumBuster wrote: »

Of course it does. Well of course you cant exactly do everything you want to in life, but Richard Branson? Warren Buffet? JP McManus? I dont think any of these guys started out with huge pools of money. And if they were in a communist society

You keep coming back to communism, nobody wants communism, nobody is talking about communism, communism has failed and will always fail. Those 3 lads could still be very important people if their skills are genuine. In the capitalist system you don't have to be the best you just have to control the resources and people. The likes of Steve Jobs may not reach great heights in a resource based economy because all he did was take advantage of highly skilled people. That's a skill in itself sure but may not be all that important outside of a capitalist system

If you are willing, to work hard, take risks and be innovative, the sky is the limit.

Or you could get absolutely nowhere and have everything stolen out from under you by the company with the best legal team.

GarIT

If it worked for many people it would be perfect but if one person doesn't participate they are A)left to die or Allowed to still get food and everything they need. In the case of A) is that right? and in the case of The next guy would say "I'll do nothing too", then you have a big group of people doing nothing.

In a world without free will it would work, but we can make our own decisions.

ScumLord

GarIT wrote: »

If it worked for many people it would be perfect but if one person doesn't participate they are A)left to die or Allowed to still get food and everything they need. In the case of A) is that right? and in the case of The next guy would say "I'll do nothing too", then you have a big group of people doing nothing.

In a world without free will it would work, but we can make our own decisions.

It's probably not going to work with this generation we were brought up to work in a capitalist system. It would take a generation of education reform to produce the kind of people that could operate in that kind of society.

crazy cabbage

GarIT wrote: »

People say material possessions are bad, but why? The more material possessions I get the happier I become, theres no way I would want to give that up for not benifit to myself.

It isn't the possessions themselves that are bad. I have nothing against possessions. I just think that there is more important things. Most will agree with this however they will only agree with words but not actions (myself included i am afraid).

Remember hearing a story.

There was a proffessor standing in front of a class of 300 people. He put a large clear bucket in front of the class and filled it with rocks.
He asked the class if the bucket was full? They replyed it was full.
He then takes small stones and puts them into the bucket and they filter down through the gaps between the rocks.
He asks again, is the bucket now full?
They relpy that it is
He then takes sand and puts it in the bucket. It filters down through whatever gaps are left.
He again asks if the bucket is full. They answer it is full.

What do the rocks, stones and sand symbilise?

If you allow the rocks and stones to be work and money and possissions ect then they will take up most of the bucket (ie:your life). The sand which stands for happness and family and friends and you and your interests will be left little or no room and will only filter down between the gaps left by the rocks and stones.

What should happen is that you and family and friends should be the rocks. The most important thing. What you put most of your time into.
Your interests and happness and hobbies ect should be the stones. Not quite as important as the rocks but important non the less.
Money, possesions and work should be the sand. Needed but only to sustain the rocks and stones. Nothing more. I truly worry when society seems to have this reversed.

So while i am not saying that 'material possessions are bad', i am saying that spending most of your life working to get them is when there is more important things.

I hope this made sence