About RBE

The term ‘resource based economy’ was coined by Jacque Fresco in The Venus Project as the name for what kind of economic system he envisions in the future. As there is a lot of talk about technology, design, architecture and the like this website tries to discuss the term ‘resource based economy’ from a human perspective based on existing and possible future values on this planet. When this website was formed, one found almost nothing about a resource based economy online in spite of the websites of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This site was made to remedy that. Still, the term ‘resource based economy’ can be replaced/overlapped by many other terms.

Resource Based Economy (RBE), Natural Resources Economy, Resource Economy, Moneyless Economy (MLE), Love Based Economy (LBE), Gift Economy (GE), Priceless Economic System (PES), Trust Economy (TE), Voluntary Collaborative Economy (VCE), Sharing Society, Resource Based Society, Moneyless Society, Love Based Society, Ubuntu, etc. etc. It is all the same thing. It doesn’t really matter what we call it, as long as it has the basic notion of an economic system where no money is used, ownership and trade is abandoned and replaced with usership and giving and all resources (both human and planetary) are shared and managed properly. On this site we will mainly use the term Resource Based Economy. We could add ‘Gift’ in the title (Resource Based Gift Economy), to emphasize that on a local micro level, we need to simply give and share our personal resources, while we at the same time, on a global macro level, manage global resources.

This site is dedicated to the development of a resource-based economy (RBE) on our planet. Here we can fantasize, visualize and imagine what RBE can be like in all aspects of life. From questions like “Will there still be coffee shops, and who would work there?” to “How can RBE be implemented in the developing countries?” and everything in between. RBE implies a million questions that needs to be answered before we can make this real. We need people in all categories to develop RBE. A main aim is to get this information out to people so the whole world can start to imagine and picture what a life in abundance without money can be like. This site can be used as a portal for initial introduction to the subject. We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information.

What is a resource-based economy? Here’s a quick definition:

“A resource-based economy is a society without money, barter or trade, with the awareness that Humanity is One family and where technology, science and spirituality is used to it’s fullest to develop and manage the planet’s resources to provide abundance for everyone in the most sustainable way.”

And here’s an extended definition:

“The continual emergence of a system of self imposed management of human and natural resources both locally and globally where money, trading and ownership is replaced by gratitude, sharing and usership in a way where everyone’s needs are met.”

A radical concept

A resource-based economy uses the original meaning of the word ‘economy’, which used to be ‘management of material resources’. In addition to ‘material resources’, we can put ‘natural resources’ and ‘human resources’. It  is a society without money with the earth’s resources shared where it is needed without any form of exchange, barter or payment. It is not a new communistic approach. Neither is it socialism or capitalism. It’s beyond communism, socialism, feudalism, fascism, capitalism or any other ‘ism’. It’s beyond any social system that has ever existed on this planet, at least in our awareness. In communism the state owns everything. In socialism the state owns something while the rest is privately owned. In capitalism everything is privately owned.

In a resource-based economy the world’s population doesn’t ‘own’ anything, but has access to everything. Anything ever needed, like food, clothing, housing, travel, etc. etc. is provided in abundance through the use of our updated knowledge, values and technology. There’s no ‘state’ that is the owner of the resources, and nothing is privately owned. In RBE the world’s resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet, not just a select few. RBE is not a society where we will live in scarcity with few resources. It is not a society where a few control and distribute the resources. No, it is a totally new society where we let today’s and tomorrow’s technology be developed to it’s fullest to work for us, and where we utilize knowledge about nature and technology to provide a life in abundance for everyone. It is a society where we truly have the option to take care of each other instead of struggling to survive.

It is a totally new way of life, unimaginable within today’s value system, but still something most people truly long for in their hearts. It is a world where we can call ourselves Free and live with dignity and respect for each other, nature, the planet and the universe. It is a concept where value no longer is measured by money, but rather by the joy we feel, the contributions we make, and the development we take part in. It is a society where we utilize our minds and hearts in providing a healthy life for everyone, developing our knowledge about nature and technology, and using this in the most sustainable way.

Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange, where everything is provided for everyone, and everyone can pursue their own interests and dreams and live in the way they want. Be it moving closer to nature and grow your own garden of delicious vegetables, travel the globe and experience the wonders of the planet, make and perform your own music or collaborate with others to develop a new invention for the betterment of society. In a society where we don’t have to think about money and profit, we can truly develop ourselves and the human race into something completely wonderful.

The monetary system

The monetary system doesn’t work anymore and is obsolete. This is obvious when you look at today’s world with increasing unemployment, financial crisis, endless consumption producing endless waste and pollution, not to speak of crime and wars. You could say money has outplayed it’s role on this planet. It produces greed and corruption through the profit motive we are all a slave to. The economy is falling apart, and everyone seems to be struggling to get richer and richer or just to make ends meet. The financial crisis has so far made over 200 million more people end up in poverty. Now, about 2 billion people in the world are considered poor. Poor countries that have received massive loans from the World Bank have become much poorer after receiving the loans, because of the interest. And they can only hope to pay it back. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now about 52 trillion dollars and this number doesn’t include the massive amount of household debt in each country. How can we owe each other so much money??? Because we think we need it.

We don’t need money

It turns out that it’s not money we need. We cannot eat money, or build houses with them. What we need is resources. Food, clothing, housing, etc. Money is just a hindrance in making the resources available for everyone. Imagine if there was no money. Right now. No money. Everything would still be there, wouldn’t it? The trees, the mountains, the houses, cars, boats, air, grass, snow, rain, sun, animals, birds and bees and the people. Nothing has changed, really. Why? Because money doesn’t really exist. There’s no money in nature. It’s only an agreement between the world’s people, made up thousands of years ago as a means to control the world population. Instead of slavery, where one had to feed, house, nurse and guard the slaves, one invented money. With money everyone would have to fend for themselves, while the rulers created the currency, collected taxes and controlled the masses, like they do today.

It was a means of which people could trade stuff that they all needed. Labor, food, housing, etc. If it wasn’t scarce, there was no need to charge for it. Like water and air. The rulers claimed ownership to land, and thus became the “owners” of this land. They could then charge others for using it and for stuff that was produced there, like it is today. And the property could be sold and inherited in the bloodline. “Banks” became invented, and eventually; loans. And now society has become addicted to it, like a drug. But, like a drug, money is something that we don’t really need, we only think we do.

The creation of money

Where did the money come from in the first place? In the beginning it was based on rare metals, like gold and silver, and because of it’s scarcity it could be used as means of trading, instead of cows, hens, corn and other rather-impractical-to-carry-around stuff. Notice the word “scarce”. Common rock wouldn’t have worked, because everyone would have had it. But today…. where does the money come from? The answer is…..: Nowhere. The money is not even printed anymore. Only 3% of the worlds money is in paper or metal currency, the rest 97% is electronic. New money today is made by the stroke of buttons on computer keyboards, like the one I’m typing on now. And this is also how the banks make loans, and wants it payed back, with interest, which is not created in the system, making bankruptcy inevitable for many companies, and now even countries.

In other words, debt is money. It’s like taking a piece of paper, writing 1 million dollars on it, giving it to a poor bastard and say “now you owe me 1 million dollars, and you have to pay it back with a yearly interest of 5%, thank you”. This is how, in simplicity, it is done. The money today doesn’t really exist. It’s just an agreement that the whole world has bought into. And now we’re stuck in it in lack of a better system. Except, now we have a better option, a resource- based economy.

Booms and busts

The economy goes up and down in booms and busts. People are getting rich out of nothing, or being struck bankrupt out of the same nothing. In a depression, shops can be full of what people need, but no one has the money to buy it. We are reduced to “consumers”, even though we are Human Beings. Governments try to control the economy by adjusting the general interest rate and by other means. We have to consume. Not too much, cause then we get inflation and a new economic bubble. But not to little either, then we get a recession because not enough people are buying the products that companies produce. So, it’s a fine balance. But really, a ridiculous balance. It leads to a lot of trouble for our selves. Overproduction in boom times, underproduction in recession times, pollution, war, corruption, crime, poverty, and withholding of technology because we have to squeeze what we can out of the oil, and other obsolete technology that gives us….money. Still, technology is advancing further and further and replacing jobs faster than we can say “technological unemployment”, which in itself is increasing year by year, replacing more and more workers by machines.


Machines are both helping us and taking our jobs. Jobs that are needed to get the money to buy things that the technology produces, so that the companies can get more money, to produce more things that you can buy, if you have the money… You see? It’s a scheme that’s set to bust. But money is not what we really need. What we need is what we today believe only money can buy. We need the resources. We need quality of life. Not the money. The truth is that there’s not enough money in the world to “buy” us out of this crisis, or if there was, the money would not be worth much. Since the world economy is based on scarcity, if there is too much money, they won’t be worth enough to pay for what we need, the resources. If there is an abundance of money for everyone there would be no value in the money. Still, that’s what the world leaders are trying to do today and has been doing for the last 40 years. Growing the economy and “printing” more money to pour into the system, so that banks can lend out more money, and companies can pay their debt, with more debt, with more money. Money, the thing that created the problem in the first place. The system is doomed for collapse. This is self evident.

Human nature

Money and false scarcity makes us steal, lie, cheat, become greedy, corrupt and stingy. Actually, all of the worlds governments and people are corrupt, because corruption is a byproduct of money. Since with money, we are all doomed to think profit. Everyone from a single person to a big company. Everyone need to have some form of “income”. And the income has to come from someone else. Thus, we get greedy, and corrupt and separated from each other and nature, which is our true provider, not money. It’s not people that are greedy and corrupt, it is not ‘human nature’, it’s the system that makes people this way. If there were no money, and we could get all we needed and wanted without from nature, technology and each other, there would be no greed, and no corruption. ‘Human nature’ is by large a product of the environment. With abundance competition becomes obsolete. With abundance there wouldn’t be any need to steal. With abundance we could focus on living our lives and develop society. It is about time we end the meaningless competition and start collaborating.

The real human nature is a collaborating one. Think about it. We naturally collaborate to build houses and bridges, develop software and businesses. Collaboration gives satisfaction while competition gives stress. Of course, we could still compete for fun, in games and sport. But when it comes to the development of society we see that competition only hinders progress. A lot of energy and resources is wasted in the pursuit of competing for market share. We don’t need 100 different flat screens, we only need one, the best. In a resource-based economy the technological development will have come so far that we can produce anything specially requested by the individual, and in the highest quality, through the use of nanotechnology and computer based manufacturing. This is not science fiction, this technology is being developed now.


What about incentive? I hear you say. Why would people want to do anything, if it wasn’t anything “in it for them”, like money? Well, I sit here now and write this, not because I earn any money on it, but because it gives me something else. The satisfaction of the feeling of helping people, helping society into a new world, that benefits all. And this is a feeling no money can buy. This, I think, is the reason for most of the worlds new inventions, like the radio, the light bulb, electricity, penicillin, etc. etc. Not money, but the need and urge to create and share with other people, and be a part of what is going on. It’s no fun keeping all your creations for your self only. The fun lies in sharing with friends, family and the world.

Why do you do anything? I bet you want to do something in your life that you find interesting and fulfilling in some way, not just because you earn money on it. Most people have hobbies and interests that that they like to spend time on, and where no money is made. For many people, this is their reason for living. For many others, they keep their job because it is fulfilling. If it ONLY made you some bucks, or maybe, rich, you would feel really poor in the end. You would realize that money can’t buy you happiness. Maybe for a while, but not permanent. So, it’s not really money that makes you do things, now is it. It’s something else. Fulfillment. We all want to be fulfilled in our lives, and even today, money is only a small part of that.

What if you didn’t need any money to get all you want today? What if you could get all you think you want today without any money? Travel anywhere you like, drive cool cars (non-polluting ones!), live in a nice place, ‘have’ this and that new electronic device, go to concerts, eat good food, relax, study what ever you want for as long as you want, work with what you want, contribute to society, learn a new skill, teach a new skill…. What would you do? No pursuit for money anymore… But you don’t need to ‘own’ the car you drive, or the house you live in, or camera you use, as long as you have access to it as long as you need it.

A boat trip

Say you want to go on a boat trip. What if you could just book a seat on a boat, and go? Or, better yet, book a whole boat, a yacht, if you will, and sail away. It would be pretty boring alone, so you bring some friends along. Good. What about food? All the food you want is provided. So is clothing. And everything else. None of it is really yours, yet all of it is. It’s everyones. It won’t be like; “hey, I need a pair of underwear, give me yours!”. Of course not. There would be plenty of underwear, enough for everyone, in enough different colors and shapes. And boats. The beauty of it is that we don’t need to own that boat. When we’re done with it, we return it, so someone else can use it. In a harbor on the opposite side of the globe, or where we picked it up. It doesn’t matter. From there we have booked a car, or whatever ‘vehicle’ we have in RBE, that will take us further on our trip.

Abundance of quality

Both the boat and the car is produced with the most ease of maintenance and use in mind. And they can maintain themselves in most ways, including taking themselves to a maintenance facility where other machines helps them with what they need. This way we don’t need parking lots stuffed full of cars that are not in use, or harbors stuffed full of boats that are just lying there. There would be a good selection of cars and boats for everyone to choose from in many kinds of designs, fitting your taste and personality. And ALL of them would be yours to use! Not just one or two. They are ALL yours, or…ours.

There would be produced more than enough of all that people would demand, in fully automated factories and on personal 3D printers. And it would be produced to last. Not like today, where cars are actually produced to brake down, so that they can sell more cars, and keep a whole maintenance industry alive. No, in a resource-based economy there would be no point in making anything in poor quality. In a resource-based economy it would be most beneficial for everyone that every product is of the highest possible quality, and that all the planet’s resources are managed, developed and protected to the highest degree. And when we go by access rather than ownership, we wouldn’t need more than a fraction of the amount of cars and boats and things we have today. Since non of the things are in use all the time, and we share the things we have, we, the environment and the planet will do with a lot less things, and a lot less waste, if any.

Two choices

In the world today there are plenty of resources for everyone, if they are properly managed, that is. The monetary system makes us compete for the resources on the planet. A resource like oil is continually being pumped up because of the money it makes, instead of researching and developing new environmentally friendly energy, thus continuing to pollute the world. There is a lot of alternative development going on, though, but still, the oil is being pumped up to the last drop. And the “green” energy is also monetized. Streams, made from the rain, made from the evaporated water the sun is responsible for, are running down the mountain, and then the electricity it produces is charged for by the kilowatt-hour. So is the wind, and the tidal power, nuclear power and every other energy source on the planet today. Making the richer richer and the poorer poorer.

It can’t go on like this forever. We have two choices. One is where globalization by corporations takes over, we are all chipped and controlled, and become the sheep that feed the never ending hunger of the few. Actually, this is not far from what it is like today. The interest you pay on your loans pays the interest the rich get on their money in the bank. I.e. they don’t have to work, but you do.

The other choice is where money is abandoned and the world’s resources are distributed to where it is needed. This distribution is possible with todays technology. We can have a sensor and distribution system covering the whole planet, making it possible to monitor resources, supply and demand all over the world. We already have this system to a large degree, through satellites and other technology. We can also combine this with input from users.

An apple tree

In nature there is a natural abundance. Everything in nature is there for us to use and develop to the best for ourselves and humanity. It is only when the profit motive comes in everything is distorted. Then crops are thrown away because of profit, and land is overused. When we close the door on money and profit, we can easily produce more than enough food for everyone on the planet. When we take one seed from an apple and put it in the ground, we get a whole tree full of apples after a while. And with that we get more than enough seeds to plant more apple trees. And everything is provided for us by nature, all for free. No charge. And not much labour. We plant the seed at the right place and then it grows all by it selves. It only needs water, light, nurturing and time. And voila, we have apples. And this goes for every other plant on the planet as well. It’s all there for us to utilize.

Decision making

The day to day decision making can largely be computerized and be based on need and our input, with highly developed, self maintaining and self producing machines and robots combined with the loving care of humans. If there is a need and want for housing in a particular area, the houses will be built by machines in accordance to the specifications of the future inhabitants. If there is need for more of a particular food, that will be produced and provided. Already today cars can run by themselves only guided by GPS and sensors. Several hospitals use robots for inventory and logistics. Planes have had autopilots for years and can both take off, navigate and land by themselves. Factories produce all kinds of products faster and more efficient than any human being could ever do. Billions of big and small decisions are already taken for us every day by computers.

Still, politicians makes us believe that “they know best” what is best for us. Even though they haven’t got a clue about the science behind it, and what is measurable the best solution for society and the environment at any given time. Politics is not in our interest, it is only a smoke screen, made to distract us from what is really important. We can have a world of abundance for absolutely everyone as long as we skip the bickering of politics and really open our eyes for what we really need and how far technology and science has really come. The technological and scientific development has really passed society’s values by far, and it’s time we catch up.


In a resource-based economy there would be no need to hold back on any new invention. No patents would be needed. Every new development that would be in the interest of humanity would be developed and shared as fast as possible. We wouldn’t want or need to pollute the world more than absolutely necessary, if necessary at all. We would develop everything in a way that would maximize the quality of life for everyone. Humans, animals, insects, plants and the environment itself. Technology has come so far today that we can make it do almost anything. Technology is not to be feared. Technology is like a knife. It can be used to stab someone to death, or to cut bread. Technology itself is neutral. It’s we who gives it it’s purpose and meaning. And there’s no turning back.

Technology has come to stay. Imagine a life without cell phones, video, mp3 players, cameras, internet, satellites, electricity, modern hospitals, washing machines, cars, trains, planes, computers, lamps, running shoes, running water, loud speakers, windows, steel, dvd players, tooth brushes, dental floss, glasses, contact lenses and what have you. A car plant today is almost 100% automated. So are most other factories. Humans are only kept there to give the illusion that jobs are created and maintained. They are not really needed there. The machines can do all the work with today’s technology. Humans are really only needed for some supervising. Technology could probably replace 99% of all human labor in a few years if we want that to happen.

This seems like a sad thing for many, but only if you need a job. In a resource-based economy automation is the liberating factor for people. It is so today as well, until the whole economy collapses, that is. Which it will, eventually. And now, imagine what tomorrow’s technology can do. It’s we who creates it, and it’s we who will decide what it will do. Today, with the monetary system, technology is used for a lot of destructive development, like weapons. The weapons are largely produced to defend or conquer borders and property, two things that will not exist in a resource-based economy. Weapons are the byproduct of money, the monetary system. War is one of the most profitable activities on this planet. The monetary system produces war, and makes technology to be used destructively. In a resource-based economy with no money, barter, exchange, borders or passports, there would be no reason to produce weapons to defend borders and kill people for property and profit.

Resource-based economy

We are foreseeing a new worldwide social system where the world’s resources are considered the heritage of all the inhabitants of this planet. A new moneyless society with a resource-based macro economy and a gift micro economy. Imagine a world without money, barter or exchange of any kind, where everything is provided for and shared by everyone. Not uniformity, but individual freedom and expression will be it’s credo. True unity through diversity, and abundance for all would be it’s goal. And for ever openness to change and development it’s reality. It’s not utopia, it’s just a new possible direction for society. No debt, loans,taxes, money, bills, accounting, laws, war, borders, passports, scarcity, stocks, financial crisis, poverty, corruption or hunger. But rather freedom, ingenuity, creativity, positive development, peace, love & understanding (yeah, yeah, cliche, but it’s true!), personal individual expression, abundance, prosperity, sharing and giving and true Unity for all the worlds people. Call it a dream, call it utopia, call it wonderland, or call it Evolution. This might just be the next step in the development of society.

Yes, the resource-based economy poses a million new questions, it’s not an easy fix. But it’s better than what we have. For the first time in history we have the possibility to communicate and collaborate across the planet and develop something that can really change the world. We could actually have a resource based gift economy today, if everyone simply stopped using money.

We need all kinds of people from all over the world to help imagine and develop this new direction for Humanity together. Everyone from artists to scientists, executives to politicians, organizations to corporations and from citizens to governments. We need EVERYONE onboard on this flight. There is no “us” and “them” anymore. We are all in this boat together.

RBE was first brought up by Jacque Fresco with The Venus Project, started in Venus, Florida, USA. It was taken further by Peter Joseph through the Zeitgeist Movement. “Zeitgeist” means “the spirit of the times”. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a political or religious movement, but rather a grassroots movement for “applied spirituality”. Meaning that we seek to implement on this planet the core values of all the world’s religions and spiritual movements, like Oneness, unity, equality and freedom for all people. True freedom can only come when we see all people on this planet as the righteous, equal members of humanity, with equal access to all the planet’s resources. For this world to exist we have to update our values and views on life and how it can be.

Read and find out more here:

UBUNTU Contributionism




Check also all the links the links page.

We need everyone to know about this new possibility for Humanity.

Here’s a list of suggestions to what you can do:

Tell your friends. Send them to this page for an initial introduction. You can use the save/share button below to post on Facebook etc.

Write in blogs and forums.

Write articles and send to media (newspapers, magazines, radio, television, internet) in all countries. Feel free to copy and use as much as the above article as you like. Get celebrities to support the movement.

Get the support of investors, companies and corporations. Don’t rule this out, we all work with or for someone, and we are all trapped and want to get out, even corporate executives. There are also many investors that actually want to create betterment for Humanity.

Get the support of politicians. Give them a chance, some might get it.

Start more websites about the resource-based economy. The more we populate the web with it, the faster the message will get out.

Involve yourself in the Zeitgeist movement.


We allow and encourage respectful duplication of this information. ‘Respectful’ means referencing this source. Thank  you. 

89 thoughts on “About RBE

  1. Not sure when this was written, but it might be useful to include Copiosis in this writeup as we are increasingly being recognized by people in both TVP and TZM as having the most credible transition plan out there. www.copiosis.com

  2. Pingback: Quora
  3. Pingback: Quora
  4. Fear is always involved in any transition.
    Right now, we live in a capitalistic society based on consumerism, money is just a word for some concept that ties us into this system which involves debt.
    But we also live in a society that is based on the fear of inadequacy and vulnerability.
    In other words, it is enforced that we feel bad for not being normal, and that we act as if we’re together when we’re not.
    A job interview is a perfect example; we are conditioned to lie so that we fit in/look better, and to be “honest” so that everyone knows us at our worst.
    We are scared collectively to reveal sides of us that are “wrong”, or to feel bad for every standard we can’t live up to.
    Vulnerability is natural, because in life it’s natural for someone or something to be too much, and fear tells us otherwise.
    Inadequacy is natural, because in life it’s natural that sometimes we just don’t meet the standards we hope to meet, and fear tells us otherwise.
    It’s the same with change- it’s natural. Having too much- it’s natural. Having too little- it’s natural.

    Furthermore we live in a society that collectively takes the approach that we must earn everything we get; that we must strive for the highest us that we can; that we are alone and must “make it” on our own; that everything in life is to serve our needs.
    These outlooks won’t just change even when we enter a resource based economy.
    They’re natural too. When we survive, we create structures of civilization, and when we have order, we can act within that order through ambition and competition.
    What comes next then?
    Well it’s already stated. As part of evolution, once someone realizes that the material in life is not all there is, this starts an inward process that realizes that what continues through all of it is love, family, relationships.
    The perspective of knowing how oneself feels and understanding another feels too.
    The perspective changes from:
    “There is you and me, and I’m going to win.” to
    “There is you and me and I understand how you feel.”
    This is the reason we are seeing so much happen in life now. We are in the middle of a collective transition. We are reaching out to minority communities, transitioning into resource-based economies- True Equality among the masses, rather than just a Republic that pretends there is a sense of equality.

    A Resource-based Economy is not a utopia, it is a step in a new direction.
    Because you can have everything in it, and can create what you truly wish, it allows for both of the above perspectives to intermingle.
    A person focused on ambition and competition and individualism can do so.
    A person focused on empathy and relating and emotional connections can do so.
    That doesn’t mean there won’t be setbacks. And there will still be those “entitled pricks” and those who project their feelings onto others through their emotional dramas.
    There will be new collective fears too.
    Because of the notions of collectivism, there will be problems with feeling like a victim, as if you can’t control your space.
    And because of inner motivation, there will be problems with feeling like there’s not enough time to DO before it’s too late.
    When it comes to any transition then, empathy is key. You must understand another’s problems, other perspectives, other ways.
    That is the shift in consciousness that’s happening now.

    Just my thoughts 🙂

  5. Western culture has often failed to distinguish between the SOFT and HARD forms of “Individualism”, thereby affording the corrupt elite plausible deniability. Apart from anything else, in order for RBE to succeed we would have to compromise some of the more HARD FORMS of our dearly beloved “Individualism”…but I dare you to try say that in public – very few will understand that statement correctly/positively, even if they otherwise support RBE.

    There were many things that I was going to say in response to the other posts, but I thought I would simply offer some ideas that I sourced elsewhere. One relates to the Christan faith (I realize that many of you don’t care for the bible, but just read the article as it presents an altertive take on individualism vs. collectivism – which I think has a bearing on RBE)

    Altruism and Psychological Egoism
    Psychological egoism is the thesis that all of our (intentional) actions are ultimately motivated by what we take to be in our own self-interest. This is distinct from ethical egoism, which makes a similar claim that is normative rather than merely descriptive. Many treat altruism as a motivational state that is ultimately other-regarding. (This is importantly different from more technical uses of the term, such as the merely behavioral sense often used in evolutionary theory.) Psychological altruism is the main opposing view, stating that some of our actions are ultimately motivated by genuine altruism (ultimately other-regarding motivations). Importantly, the motivations here must be ultimate or intrinsic. Psychological egoists admit that we can desire to help another, but they will maintain that this is merely instrumental to an ultimate desire that is self-interested. Such a theory is important to ethics in part because it can potentially lead to challenging morality: If altruism is psychologically impossible, then it can’t be our duty to be altruistic.
    [source: philpapers.org/browse/altruism-and-psychological-egoism%5D

    Individualism vs. collectivism—what does the Bible say?

    Individualism can be defined as putting the interests of the individual above those of the group. The idea of collectivism is that the needs of the group take precedence over each individual in it. There are entire cultures that have a bent toward one of these two philosophies; for example, the United States has historically encouraged individualism, while the culture in South Korea leans more toward collectivism. Is one better or worse than the other, from a biblical standpoint? The answer is not a simple “Thus saith the Lord.” The truth is, the Bible gives examples of both individualism and collectivism.

    Individualism puts the focus on doing whatever’s best for “me,” regardless of what effect that has on the “group.” Collectivism puts the focus on doing whatever’s best for “the group,” regardless of its effect on individuals within the group. From a biblical perspective, neither of these ideologies—when played out to their full extent—are what God intends. Ultimately, God created humans for His sake (Isaiah 43:7), not for their own or any other person’s sake. A godly focus would be to do what is best for God and His kingdom (Matthew 6:33a).

    There are verses in the Bible that illustrate collectivism to a certain extent. Caiaphas’s inadvertent prophecy that “it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50) is one case of collectivist thought. In the early church in Jerusalem, people pooled their resources and gave to those in need so that no one lacked anything (Acts 2:44–45; 4:32–35). In 2 Corinthians 8:12–14, Paul encourages the church in Corinth to give financially to the church in Jerusalem “that there might be equality” (verse 13). The key to note in these examples, however, is that the people who gave had a choice in the matter. Their giving was strictly voluntary (Acts 5:4). No one was forced to give his resources for the benefit of the group, but they willingly did so out of love for the Lord and for the church. As an individual gave to benefit the group, that individual was blessed, as well (2 Corinthians 9:6–8). This principle of the Kingdom contains some elements of collectivism but goes beyond it. Our motivation for serving the church is not just to benefit the church as a collective; our motivation is that it pleases God (see Hebrews 13:16).

    Other verses in the Bible illustrate the value and significance of the individual. In one of His parables, Jesus emphasizes the importance of growing and stewarding well the things God gives us because individually we are held accountable (Luke 19:15). In Luke 15, Jesus tells the story of a shepherd who left his flock to seek one lost lamb and the story of a woman who turns her house inside out to find an individual piece of an heirloom (see Luke 15:3–10). Both parables illustrate the value God places on the individual over the group. As we saw with collectivism, though, these examples demonstrate the idea of individualism only partially. God values the individual over the group at times because it pleases Him and gives Him glory. When God is glorified, everyone benefits, individuals and the group—notice that in the parables of Luke 15, every time what was lost is found, everyone rejoices (Luke 15:6, 9).

    God values both the individual and the collective. The Bible doesn’t really argue for either individualism or collectivism as the correct ideology. Instead, it offers something else altogether, illustrated in the description of the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul tells us that individual believers are like parts of a body, each playing an incredibly important and vital role to the success of the body to function as it should (1 Corinthians 12:14, 27). The various parts of a body function only when they are a part of the body as a whole. A thumb can do things no other part of the body can do, but only when it’s connected to the hand! (see 1 Corinthians 12:18–20). Likewise, the body as a whole is an amazing organism, but only when all the parts are taken care of individually (see 1 Corinthians 12:25–26).

    The debate over what the Bible says about individualism vs. collectivism will no doubt continue; nevertheless, we can all learn from C. S. Lewis on the topic, no matter what position we take: “I feel a strong desire to tell you—and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me—which of these two errors [individualism or collectivism] is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs—pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them” (from Mere Christianity, book 4, chapter 6)

    1. We can call it ‘God’s world’, or we can call it ‘our’ world. To me it is the same. God is no separate entity. God is a part of us and we are a part of God. God is the Whole and we are all a part of the Whole and we have the Whole in us. So, naturally, what is good for the Whole is good for the individual, and opposite. But thank you for your perspective, using the Bible. Personally, I think going that route through the Bible is a detour towards the essence. 🙂

  6. My finished prototype allows one to easily test a verifiable yet fully encrypted link between bitcoin and an anonymous vector space of reasons. These tests go far beyond multi-factor analyses into court applicable repertory grids from the field of clinical psychology. To reiterate: –

    This is a message of hope in that, as far as is known, there’s only one prediction that we’ll see peak Bitcoin around mid January, 2014 (www.mcoscillator.com). In the meantime, my Ingrid software development team needs help to plugin its port of an AI Bitcoin Contract layer. So, using a proactive embalming solution, it can become a tail that the RBE movement can pin on the world rump of Capitalism. Ingrid will plugin a meaningful planetary scale encryption for all its AI Insulated Bitcoin transactions, say those over $10,000 for starters.

    “A Single-Payer Bitcoin Insulation with meaningful intrinsic value”, is what I will explain in an interview. Notwithstanding Greenspan saying there is no certainty of “where the money comes from”, there will be enough certainty as to why a single payer assurance needs to be made or withheld. This will satisfy the People’s Bank of China, by showing how they make it a currency with “real meaning”. Furthermore, with them as single payer, tapping certain transactions will create the required legal status.

  7. Pingback: UgFreak - Page 12

    1. You could easily set up laws that dictate everyone spend a certain amount of time training and/or working per week. You can do similar laws for different types of work. For instance – lower hours required for low skill jobs, or dangerous jobs. Plus, these jobs could move to machinery or drones.

      On top of this, you could decentralize the government as it is no longer needed, and people can take the time to make their own laws as they see fit – to rise and fall as one nation or one state, not a republic or democracy but a smart form of direct democracy. It’s possible now.

      Open source is a good way to look at how an RBE might work, only it isn’t exactly the same. Also, we can mandate reuse of materials and products – upgrades, maintenance, recycling – it all means abandoning the consume/trash/repeat cycle towards a use/reuse cycle. It’s smarter resource allocation.

      The fact is, this form of system would fix everything. I’ve done a lot of economic study – from anarchies and capitalist societies to socialist ones. Nothing is more promising or better for tomorrow than an RBE, as described here. You just have to hash out the details..

      (Author – please update. I’ve made my post on this at nullified0101.wordpress.com on my economic posts. This was the answer I was looking for. Be ready for this when we have systemic collapse globally. it will come in about 10 years or so….)


      1. Good answer. Thank you.

        I would like to add that there are many people who would enjoy their work, are doing so today, and would see it both as a joy, a privilege and a desire to contribute their part to society.

        Henry, you must remember that in this new world people will be more awakened and ‘work’ will be more joyful as there will be less to no competition and the tasks will be meaningful in terms of fulfilling your part towards making the world better for everyone, not just to fill your pocket with money needed to pay bills and buy things.

        In RBE you won’t need money and all activity will be motivated from a combination of what you are interested in personally and what benefits society and the world generally. And these two interests will overlap most of the time as we all will be working towards the betterment of the world as a whole, not just our own private lives.

        Without money and private ownership, this can be done. No money or ownership doesn’t mean you don’t have access to anything. On the contrary, you have access to everything, unlike today where you have only access to what you can afford. Instead of ‘owners’ we will be ‘custodians’. Instead of trading we will have free sharing.

      2. You’re contradicting yourself all over the place. First you say we could mandate work with law that forces people to work a certain number of hours per week (as if working out of fear of Government punishment is somehow a better future than working because you want compensation), and then you advocate direct democracy and decentralized government, as if 51% of people are going to just going to vote to force themselves to work with no compensation! Then you go right back to talking about all the other things ‘we’ would mandate, like recycling, innovation, etc. When you say “We just need to hash out the details”, it’s code for “We just need to figure out how to give people who think like me absolute authority over the world’s wealth.”

    2. What you may not know (yet), among many others btw, is the scientifically proven fact that monetary reward is no motivator in cognitive tasks. It can actually impede performance. Yes, as counterintuitive as it may sound. There are many studies, conducted independently across the world and all with the same result. Source: “Drive” by Daniel Pink. Money ONLY motivates in mundane tasks which the RBE targets to replace as much as possible with automation.

    3. Incentive to work is reputation. Like in the hunter gatherer communities before the invention of money. You help catch a great mammoth, and your village celebrates, and you earn reputation. You help create the cure for cancer, same happens, but globally. How much you work is logged in comparison to the global working average, and if people see that your average is lower than most people, they will give you the cold shoulder. It’s natural, intuitive, and effective.

  9. Decision Making (in a RBE)

    random observations and opinions (sorry if its long and/or obvious);

    Is see preference(subjective) decisions and technical(objective) decisions. Decisions can be manual, fully automated, or computer assisted. Decisions are based on information about what situation you which to achieve(target) and the current situation.

    If you are in a car, the climate control computer doesnt decide what temperature you want,
    you select the temperature based on your (subjective) preference, and the computer makes techical decisions to achive it.
    The computer relys on a technical input, the themometer giving infomation about the current situation is not in a conflict of interets with regards to the temperature or the computers decision, its not marketing/selling/censoring/spinning the information.

    In this example you make some decisons, and the computer handle many tedious decisions for which there is a consensus, everyone (given the technical information/training) agrees heat should be turned up (instead of down) if the temperature is too low.

    What temperature you prefer should be left up to you, at best the computer can make suggestions based on your past preference pattern (example, what ever temperature is set by default before you choose, might be the last one you selected or the average selection you make, and if another driver sits behind the wheel it might be what he usually prefers as default, with the option to change as always).

    The reality, is that there might be someone else in the car with you. Thats where a Coordination angle comes in. You might be exasperated by the other persons subjective preference. In this case, the first solution to seek is a dual zone climate system, allowing each preference to be met. If that is not possible, you can see if you can ride with someone that has a similar preference so that you both are relatively comfortable. If there are to be 4 people, you might designate the temperature you like so that passengers know what to expect and more likely to have similar preferences, and as a last resort mechanism you might vote on 21 or 23. This vote mechanism is not the end all solution, but a temporary measure until you can implement dual/quad zone climate control or configure passengers with common preferences.

    We should seek to automate technical decisions, and for preferences, we should seek to grant as much diversity of (individual) options when possible, harmonize group/community preferences (diversity of communities), and use voting (on the smallest scale affected by the decision) when other mechanisms are not currently adequate/practical.

    The decision making must also consider priority factors. If someone has a medical condition threatenin his life if the temerature is above 30, you should not vote for 34, life/emergencies should be weighted above comfort.

    Also its important that the Process be transparent accessible and a consensus.

    In our current system, hierarchic institutions make descions that directly affect other people (without a say or without the information) while a minority making the descions are virtually always in a conflict of interests and often working not in the interest of the people (but for the interests/profit of a very few), and control the information about which they are in a conflict of interest (cigarette companies did everything to prevent the spread of information which they are the first and best place to know about and share information about, that cigarettes cause diseases, that means that in the 50s and 60s, many decisions were made without accurate information in addition to crap marketing advertizing to influence decisions based on the companies profit-motive conflict of interets). Potential whistleblowers are censored by the hierarchy, even in cases when the institution at large would be in favor (if they knew) of fixing a situation (ex of abuse by top of the hierarchy). In canada, a few institution/ministery know about a deadly leak of chemicals that killed many people over many years, but no one dare speak out for fear of loosing their job (this abject aberration has both a money-based cause and a hierarchy-based cause)

    1. Right now, if I go to the supermarket, not only do I not have pertinent information (OGM or not), but the people best placed to provide information are in a conflict of interest, therefore covering-up negative information (outright censoring, lawsuit threatening, and tiny font in a sea of jargon) and posting misleading information(advertising) instead.

      1. Oh yea, and I forgot, speaking of information needed to make decisions, the information about the toxic cocktail being shot in water tables in Fracking festivals are not made available to the public, why no, the poisonous crap is their very own proprietary “secret blend” of toxic crap, its their corporate secret recipe, commercial interests to protect they say, its not because there’s anything unhealthy about it or because residents might not be happy. That’s in addition to all the information not available because of copyright, proprietary claims, confidential contracts (even with “public” organizations), national security secrets, etc.

    2. Very good observations. I like your distinction between preference based and technological based decisions. It is a very good distinction to have in mind when thinking about ‘cybernated decision making.

      One thing on the ‘car temperature’ example that I think should be added before the last effort of voting. And that is the search for a solution that can make everyone happy and comfortable. In the car example, it could be that the one that feels cold, puts on a jacket, or that the one that feels warm takes of the sweater.

      I believe that it is possible to find solutions that makes everyone happy in almost all cases, as long as everyone are willing to give a little and not only be egotistical, while we at the same time use our brains and creativity to think about other possible solutions to the same problem.

      Like in a film I just saw where people in rural England did not want wind turbines in their landscape and managed to vote it out. I was then thinking, ‘what other sustainable alternatives are there that could make everyone happy’? One is of course Sun and solar panels. Another could be Thermal energy. Both not as ‘ugly’ as huge wind turbines.

      There are solutions that makes everyone happy in most cases. The problem today of course is the narrow self interest and profit motive. The wind turbine guy didn’t have any other options than wind turbines. And of course, every household covering their roofs with sun panels doesn’t make any energy company rich as the power then is in the hands of individual households. Thermal energy of course, is a typical ‘political decision’.

      In RBE, the preference based decision would be: We want/need more sustainable energy sources in this place that does not interfere with our nice looking landscape. The technical decision would then be to go out and look at possible solutions and coming up with maybe solar or thermal or maybe more, and then look at the pros and cons of the different solutions and go for the ‘best’. And all the pros and cons would only be based on non-monetary premises.

      Get rid of the monetary system, and we get rid of most our problems. It takes a completely different mindset, though.

  10. Imo, Climate change and Population Growth debates, though interesting, are derailing much needed interaction/debate/brainstorming/design on the RBE specifics per say, since I have not seen a theoretical operational design for a functional RBE (so far we have the idea that flight is possible but no “design” for a “functional” prototype let alone a prototype. Knowing flight is possible doesnt help someone leaping off a cliff, you need a functional prototype). Thats like debating on where we should go if we had a plane (debating on whether Paris would have better weather in May…), while not working on the prototype that will make the plane a reality (and without which the question is moot anyway). From my point of view, one of the primary challenges is defining what RBE is exactly, (at least one possible version of it whose lack of perfection is compensated by its applicability in real life/our system), and how it works from a transition/growing and replicating perspective in our current system.

  11. Good point Steve. In essence the RBE principles are a good yardstick for religion followers to check the core principles in their religion and whether their religious institution is practicing the principles. Chances are the institution is chasing monetary profit for power.

    1. If you’re referring to ‘Waking Up’, it’s still simmering… Or does Bill have a movie up his sleeve as well? 🙂

  12. Absolute truth. This document is ingeniously stated. With people who can think critically like this makes me think we may make it out of this disaster known as the monetary system and save this world. Make no mistake… we are in trouble. The masses have no idea. But they will within the next 15-25 yrs if we don’t solve it this problem.

    Keep discussing people…

  13. Currently the rift between the Western world and the Islamic world is growing wider – how does this affect the feasibility of transition to RBE – would welcome thoughts – thanks

    1. I’m going to specifically not address religion itself for this. A core component of Islam is the care of the poor. Muhammad described in great detail that taking care of the poor was noble. RBEs do just that, also RBE’s will even out the distribution of wealth, which is a prime motivator in the middle east

  14. Not much discussion happening here lately. Just watched The Secret Of OZ. With all this information available the majority of people are still ignorant of what is going on – why isn’t stuff like this movie standard curriculum in schools?

  15. Problem of waiting time in a resource based economy

    A resource based economy sounds appealing, where a person can have access to ANY resources he/she needs. But how long will it take for the person to gain access to these resources?

    For example, if person A wants to watch the news on an iPad he could simply turn it on whenever he wants to. However, he would have to register his interest and wait to be granted access to the iPad in a resource based economy.

    1. I don’t think it will take very long depending on how everything is built. Right now we just have just enough resources to buy whatever we need. But even then if x amount of people all go for y product and the y product runs out then you have a problem. That problem already exists in this economy. By switching over to an RBE it might take awhile before we figure out how to excel in making production, ect.. but bottom line is in a RBE world we create what we want and we can make it as fast and simple as possible.

      Anyway nothing is handed to you in this current system which is why i am fed up with it. It offers nothing for me and even if i do find something better i hope i can use my money to start building a hybrid rbe and then people will start to see the potential in it.

    2. I can see your point there but if we didn’t have stores & warehouses full of iPads waiting for us to earn enough to buy, everyone could ‘have’ one.

    3. I think the iPad analogy is a bad one. For an item so frequently used, like a phone or a computer you are not going to have to wait for it to arrive. Each person would have one. A better example would be a boat. You wouldn’t own a boat but you could check one out (like a book at the library), when your done you return. Perhaps a boat isn’t available on tuesday but you can take it out wednesday.

    4. “wait to be granted access to the iPad in a resource based economy”
      Why do you assume this? Access to any information system can be granted to everybody at any time.

      Don’t forget that in the current system money gives you a mere illusion of “freedom” and immediacy. If you’re looking for items which are out of stock you’ll have to wait, even if you have plenty of cash. And if the items are not “commercially viable” anymore you might be totally out of luck.

    5. Most products, especially electronics, in todays society are created under the concept of “planned obsolescence”, meaning they are not built to last, despite us having the technology to have them do so, they are built to break down after a certain amount of time so you have to buy a new one. In a RBE the theory is that products would be designed to be durable and as advanced as possible because we would actually be using technology to its fullest capacity instead of hindering technology the way we do so certain companies don’t go out of business. Like we have the technology to make batteries or energy saving light bulbs that don’t die out, but we don’t use that technology, despite the benefits to our planet, because too many businesses would be out of business. Everyone would have personal access to the best technology especially their own electronic devices.

  16. In a perfect, peaceful and loving world . . . this might work . . . but we don’t live in that world!

    Realistically, the only way this system could work is after the worlds economy totally crashes.

    Capital intensive products (computers, cars, airplanes, etc.) require capital formation for purchase of raw material, labor and equipment . . . . in order to produce their products and provide jobs and a tax base for our elected parasites to squander.

    if we want to revert to an economy that lacks computers, cars, airplanes, etc., then Resource Based (methinks, poorly named) might just work . . . . . the economy we currently have is an obvious disaster run into the ground by elected parasites.

    1. I agree and understand it is difficult to imagine this world, since the world we live in now is so saturated with money, trading, property and profit. I often have doubts myself if it will/can ever come to pass. But then I discover new initiatives among people that give me new hope.

      When it comes to the level of technology, then that is pictured to be multiplied in a resource based economy. In RBE there is no monetary capital anymore, resources and new inventions are shared, and global collaboration has replaced competition. We are not talking about ‘reverting’ to anything less advanced. Quite the contrary. Google The Venus Project to get a picture of what we might be seeing in this ‘RBE world’.

    2. Thank you Rich for your comments. They are a great example of the inner dialog of all of us, for or against. Let’s see if I can empirically prove why Rich is wrong. Rich starts with the fact that we don’t live in a perfect world, I think no one argues that point! Rich’s next point is that an RBE could only be implemented after a worldwide economic collapse, I disagree. Only by great social organization can we scout and measure the worlds resources. An economic collapse would far remove us from that ability, so thankfully we are much closer to that endeavor than after a world wide meltdown.

      Rich next states that capital intensive products require capital formation for purchase of raw material, labor and equipment for production. So we have 3 elements here; raw material, labor and equipment. I’m going to take the easy route here and tote the achievements of the open source movement. The majority of computer equipment (that is the backbone of the internet) runs on linux, a product of the open source movement. The labor of the open source movement was given freely and not purchased. This proves that labor capital intensive equipment does not require the purchase of labor.
      Now that we have eliminated labor from the requirements we can address raw material and equipment. What is equipment? Cranes, forklifts, sewing machines, engines etc. These are simply raw materials modified by the use of talented labor. Well we know we have labor, so now we have eliminated equipment. For further elaboration on this point look up Global village construction set. So that leaves us with raw materials. What are raw materials? Iron ores, wood, soil, sunlight, metals, plastics, oil etc. do we have to purchase those? Well, yes and no. Sunlight is free, metals must be mined from the earth (or from discarded computers). Earlier stages of a Resource Based Economy are going to be more limited in raw materials but as it gains ground and more people see the benefits to their lives, more resources will be allotted to the RBE.

      Obviously Rich finds that non-scientific social concern is aggravating and as science is embraced and applied to a system of government those issues will subside. I think that leaves us with the potential for an RBE that DOES have computers, cars (until obsolete due to efficient public transit), and airplanes. Thank you Rich for the mental exercise.

  17. The outcomes you’ve described will be one of 2 – both outlined in detail in Marshall Brain’s Robotic Nation essay/story. I agree the current capitalist model is unsustainable but neither could a nation simply announce it’s transition to this new economy without a civil war. For RBE to occur, you’d need several pilots requiring a/multiple very wealthy philanthropic sponsor/s that doesn’t /don’t mind “losing” all of their wealth should the pilot prove successful. These pilots would have to be relatively large land masses capable of providing all of the resources needed to become self-sufficient as well as a ton of automated manufacturing and robotic infrastructure not to mention a sizable population that genuinely ascribes to the better-and-better philosophy, not just lazy dead-beats. Additionally, you’d have to guard against internal/external sabotage and likely need a military defense cuz there’s gonna be bunch of really pist off weathly people that don’t appreciate the prospect of losing all of the money and power they’ve accumulated. Then, IF all of this works out, you’d need safe-guards in place to prevent any one person or party from seizing control since nobody and everybody owns the resources. IF RBE survived all of that, it could branch out to the rest of the world. Sadly, our only alternative is a model of extreme wealth disparity with the have’s – on one end – and welfare dormatories that the have-not’s will sit in while waiting for death – on the other.

    1. Interesting. You are describing one of several transition scenarios that can lead to a resource based economy. Your scenario can at first glance seem like the ‘only’ way. Still, I see many other paths as well. The Transition is something that’s been bugging me ever since I heard about RBE. But since then, I’ve also realized that in many aspects of the world, we already HAVE a resource based economy. I am planning to write about all of this in coming posts.

      The ‘military guarding’ that you claim is needed I also thought was necessary, until I realized that it might not be. Why? Because this RBE society might not seem all that glorious and desirable for many people, since it is very far from what they are used to. The notion of ‘A society without money, but with everything provided for everyone’ will put many people off as they are used to work for money and buy what they need.

      Frankly, I don’t think an RBE city will have that many ‘invaders’ as it will be too far fetched for most people to grasp what life in a city like that will look like. ‘No shopping???’. ‘What about iPads and iPhones, flat screen televisions, Samsung and Apple, BMW and Audi, Hollywood Blockbusters, Justin Bieber, U2, Worldwide Travel, Holidays…’. ‘Will I only have ONE cereal brand, then..???’. You get my drift. It will be too different to be desirable for most people. In the beginning it will only be for the most interested.

      Now, from what you describe RBE to be, the scenario above is what we’ll have. Still, as said, I already see many aspects of RBE IN THE WORLD WE HAVE. There are many services and products that are offered for free now in the world. On the Internet we have Wikipedia, WordPress, Gmail, Email, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Blogger, Pinterest, to mention but a tiny few. Not to speak of the Internet itself. We also have lots of free software like Ubuntu/Linux, Open Office, Picasa, etc. etc. Offline there is a huge worldwide volunteer movement with people helping people all over the world. ‘Thinking resource based’ is also constantly done in many aspects of industry and production saving both resources and money.

      I think we can, and must, have a ‘hand in hand’ gradual transition from the monetary based world to RBE where we get more and more ‘free projects’, like Wikipedia and a growing awareness about the total resource based possibility. People have to get used to this gradually.

      There’s an Australian initiative that aims to ‘buy themselves out’ of the monetary world by getting investors in more and more RBE initiatives. To me this looks much more promising and realistic than ‘one’ billionaire buying up huge land masses. It is not just about land masses, but also about what is already there, with infrastructure and buildings. Check out the Australian initiative here: earthcommunities.com.au/

      1. OK, just looking over the earthcommunities site leaves a sour taste in my mouth for 2 reasons – both political and not necessarily relevant to RBE:

        1) “Our planet and human society are not engaged in a harmonious relationship and as a result Earth’s ability to continue to support all species of life is now in threat. …The actions required are many but some of the most important steps are to begin reducing our populations, implement policies to reduce our consumption of our natural resources and generally reduce all human activity to a level which allows humanity to be in harmony with the ecological system.”

        SAY WHAT?!?! I’ve heard this argument before and it dates back some 200 years ago when it was claimed that the earth would run out of food and other resources based on the population growth… we would have exceeded that 10x over by now. It’s all alarmist rhetoric. New inventions are made, unknown resources are discovered, they’re even now talking about mining water and other metals in space. We are not as limited as they would lead us to believe we are. Taken to the next logical conclusion, we would need to limit our consumption according to someone’s perceived threshold as well as our population. Who dictates that? Do we need a 1 child policy? what if we exceed the quota? – mandatory abortions? forced sterilizations? Resource reallocation? After all, it’s in the best interest of us all. Rubbish. The earth is not a fragile flower, it’s a strong resilient ongoing resource for us to exploit and it’s capable of sustaining us and helping us carry forward into the future (space exploration anyone) indefinitely. I’m all for conservation and using our resources responsibly, respectfully and to the fullest, but this smacks of environmentalism.

        2) “As a result no government in the world can seriously tackle climate change and the deterioration of the environment because to do will result in economic recession and depression.”

        OK, so now we’re sanctioning the climate change agenda too. While I believe, based on scientific evidence, that climate change does exist, there is a) no such thing as “settled science” regardless of what Al Gore may claim and b) there has been NO conclusive evidence that humans are the cause of said climate change and as such have little to no control over the manifestations of climate change – IOW, AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory is just that, a theory. I do not believe we should be instituting life changing policies based on something as precarious and heavily refuted as AGW. Everyone should be skeptical of anyone who screams, “give me all your money/power of attorney/liberty/etc, or we’re all going to die. More environmentalist the-sky-is-falling blather.

        That being said, I find this organization as much a political action group as a body espousing economic change. They should stick to economic change around RBE.

        1. I agree in what you say here, especially point 1. I have for the moment chosen to disregard these points on the Earth communities website as merely clumsy statements, and rather focus on what their plans are for establishing RBE societies.

          I don’t think their idea is by far ‘ready for public’, but I think it is a good one. Why not get funds together to buy up land and buildings, and start communities within them, and live ‘for free’ within those communities? They are not saying their approach can not be copied. They are not saying that they alone shall be the holder of one Earth community fund.

          Of course, one has to have a level of trust in this, but it can be greatly coupled with observations of actual acquisitions and the following option to work/live within the communities. And when more communities become established, they can ‘trade’ with each other, meaning ‘sharing resources’ across boundaries, and gradually money is phased out.

      2. Thank you for your response BTW. I meant to include a response to the rest of your post too:
        – I look forward to hearing about the other paths you see.
        – I’m not sure a military wouldn’t be needed – a system that intrinsically threatens “MY” perceived capital and “MY” way of life will be met with resistance; sometimes forcefully.
        – I agree with the rest of what you’re saying.
        – the earthcommunities initiative looks ike a limited rationing commune-like endeavor – not an expansive, take what you want (as much as you want) because anything not used will get recycled and we have enough energy abundance to keep going.

        In my opinion, if the RBE is to gain acceptance and work, it cannot be centrally planned or controlled. All people have to have the liberty to use as much as they want &/or have as many children as they want – yet controls need to be put in place to avoid abuse or prevent the system from being taken over or collapsing.

        If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. – James Madison

        1. “In my opinion, if the RBE is to gain acceptance and work, it cannot be centrally planned or controlled.”

          There needs to be some sort of control system in place as resources will still be finite- there needs to be some system in place to work out what resources are available and match the usage of those resources to the required demand. In a free market-based system, this is already done through the pricing structure without any need for planning. Without prices, there needs to be some system that has the information embedded into it. This doesn’t need to be some sort of inefficient Soviet-style central planning bureaucracy- much of it might be automated and the actual processing done by a distributed network of local computers which each have information about local resources, production etc.

          The only other approach I can think of requires a measure of risk. This is, instead of having some complex management system of global resources and production, you simply try to (as best as possible) find ways of eliminating and minimising waste, and try to change attitudes such that people don’t feel the need to consume more than they realistically need or want. For the latter you have to get rid of both conspicuous consumption culture and the mindset that thinks that more “stuff” will improve our lives- plus try to prevent addictive behaviour. Then, hope that the “invisible hand” will sort everything else out.

    2. Well the wealthy doesn’t understand it well enough and with anything it takes a lot of work to do. But if we don’t do anything about it then nothing ever happens. It doesn’t start with well we’re worried about this guy trying to create hell. There is a way to do it properly and that’s with the knowledge of what a person would react if someone builds an RBE based economy around the current one. If people are determined enough to do it, safeguards will have to be put in place so the RBE can start to take effect. The problem isn’t the govt or some rich person the problem is with us.. including me. We have to focus our lives into creating a better world.. otherwise it’s not going to work. Determination and people with various talents will make this possible. THe longer we wait the longer it will take effect unless we end up in another world war, the point is we all need to focus on the future, fixing the problems in the present is helpful but also we need to think about what we are doing with our lives. All i do is stay on the computer all day because nothing else worthwhile is worth doing, especially since i don’t make that much money. Like i said people can be the solution to this problem if they stop and think about what they are doing. I am sick of all these new laws, all this new crap this world is already dead to me, i’m just picking up scraps of what people leave behind.

  18. Without sustainability in the development that meets the needs of the present, we are compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

    If we care about future generations we have to use sustainable development. If we can do that using the monetary system, why aren’t we? To be sustainable in development all three pillars have to be equal. With the Monetary System, the money used for Econimc Growth has to be the same amount that is used for Environmental Protection and Social Development.

    The monetary system paradox when used for sustainable development:

    We sacrifice Social Development and Environmental Protection for Economic Development to make more money to help Social Development and help protect the Environment.

    We don’t need money, equality is the key. The Poor aren’t limited by money, We are all limited by money.

    A RBE is possible and it is our way to attain sustainable development. This will benefit everyone in the world.

  19. Thank you!! This is brilliant…We are embarking upon a shift in consciousness that is unlike anything before in the history of mankind. What you speak of is a whole new world, with a whole new view. The current level of consciousness is based on survival of the fittest. What you speak of is a higher level of consciousness that is not of the current level of consciousness and the two do not mix. To image what you speak of takes setting the scale to zero and imagining it from a world that is created from a higher intelikey that is based on higher thought, a world that is created from a higher level of consciousness where lack, limitation, greed, control, abuse, mistrust, pain and suffering are gone. A world that is built upon consciousness not a world that was built from those unconscious of who and what they really are. But a world built from a higher consciousness that has released the unconscious therefore is fully conscious. Yes, you have it here and its happening and will continue as consciousness shifts and a whole new thought process comes in. Your view will be yeaned for and implemented. Thank you for taking the time to bring such brilliance into fruition. Kind regards

      1. Oh my God! Yes, we all should be eating the pasta of North African origin called “couscous”!!! With this “couscous awakening” all our word’s problems will undoubtedly be solved!!! YOU ARE A GENIUS!!!!!

        1. Uh, I meant “world’s” not “word’s”…. but still, that’s not as bad as “couscous” for “conscious.” First step in getting the world to take you seriously: more attention to detail in proofreading.

  20. i have to admit i like the idea of RBE, but don’t know that i can see how it is fundamentally more equitable or more spiritually oriented than using a medium of exchange to trade our labor.

    in my mind, the fundamental question revolves around the earth’s gifts, and of the sustainability of the usage and/or removal of those treasures. our current system involves “property rights” whereby a piece of land can be owned, and whatever is above and below it can be utilized in any way (within culturally accepted guidelines).

    someone can own land and be a careful and faithful steward, and someone else can wreak havoc and remove minerals and destroy it for any other uses.

    the issue, typically, is that:

    1. there is no accountability for destruction that impacts “everyone” (i.e. air pollution)

    2. the future costs of any destruction or pollution are not factored into the cost of the value of anything removed from the land.

    i love the idea of everyone living together without ownership and there being a gifting culture. i understand how we are all connected, at an energetic, conscious and spiritual level.

    however, the issue i find with all utopian systems are that they don’t seem to have ways of dealing with humans when they don’t act in a utopian fashion, but instead exemplify the darker side we see manifest itself on a regular basis.

    the primary value of government and of any economic system, is to provide both freedom and protection. freedom to enjoy the “fruits” of ones labor with the protection to enjoy those same “fruits.”

    ownership, mostly equates to usage. this makes sense to me. if i occupy a house, vs. rent a house vs. own a house, i have use.

    but if 1,5,20,50,100 people decide they would be best served by sleeping in the bed i call my own, where do i sleep? at some point the desires of another infringe on my desires.

    while i understand this issue stems from the concept of scarcity, at some level we seem to be living in a quantifiable, scarce world. the number of mattresses that have been made in the world is a finite number. the sun that shines upon us and provides so much of the earth’s energy has a finite duration (even if it feels infinite). I accept that there may be ways in the spiritual/energy realm where matter can be created from an idea, but until that can be seen/done by the multitudes, it feels silly to build a world around what could be, but isn’t.

    i really want to understand how this system can work, and i would love to replace my idea that the constitutional framework that was envisioned by the US founding fathers is not the closest we have yet come to a system that takes the best of both sides into account.


  21. Hello ADMIN: I first ran into you – although I don’t think you are aware of it – on an article on YAHOO concerning that discovery of a new planet being formed some 450 light years from Earth.

    It’s interesting you have this concept. I first conceived it when I was 8 years old – back in 1954 – which, I know, is telling my age. (HAHA!!) I agree with most of it, but have not had time to read the entire site.

    I would point out one thing I think is important -and which you have addressed – the question of ownership. I understand what you are saying about using but not really owning -but that is simply, I think, dangerous hair-splitting that will turn the average person off to the idea.

    Private ownership is KEY to most peoples self-esteem and feelings of security. This is not an idea -an intellectual concept – that can exist in a vaccum IF you ever have any hope of seeing it realized. How this is SOLD is important.

    For instance, I have FINALLY started a book on this which has the working title “Capitalism without Capital.” That is, to create a system that would function much like Capitalism -AKA ownership Capitalism- and would be an ownership based on VALUE. The coin of the realm, as I present it, is Knowledge Value, Labor Value, and Use Value. When you labor, that is YOUR payment for whatever you need or want. And people want to “possess” something.

    The fact it will wear out, be thrown away, or used up – and focusing on that as not really owning- is guaranteed to get you labeled a Communist, Socialist -etc. I know, because I’ve been accused of being that. By the way have YOU ever read any of the works of Karl Marx? If not, you should, especially “The Communist Manifesto”, and even more than that, “Das Kapitalist” The first time I read them I was FLOORED by how close Marx came to predicting exactly where we find ourselves, today.

    What did he say? THIS: (Das Kapitalist”); “The only way a Global economy can succeed is the Capitalist MUST destroy his own middle-class.” Do we not see that happening today? Or this one by Lenin – and I get a kick out of it – “The Capitalist will sell us the rope with which we SHALL HANG THEM.” And I always like to add, “That proved only half right… we not merely sold them the rope – thinking of China – we GAVE them the whole damn business of making it.”

    Another thought or two for now, and then I must go. I appreciate your religious convictions and respect them, although I do not share them. I like to say I am a “born again” Agnostic, and an equal pain in the rear to all religions, not just yours. In fact, I have often thought ANY truly religious person of ANY major World Religion should by their nature favor the type of system you and I have “found.” And the fact my Agnosticism makes me skeptical of a Golden Hereafter actually motivates ME to try to make the one life we know of as best as possible for all people, and all life.

    While I know many WILL like it because of those beliefs, there will be the inevitable squabbles, and labels of “Religious Kooks” by those who differ from you.. Again, this is an idea we are trying to sell… the presentation of that idea, for the widest possible appeal, is KEY to it happening.

    I will be reading around your site as time permits, but probably not posting too much. I have an “intellectual property” to protect, a publisher already interested, and I’m sure he would take a dim view of my saying too much online.

    I just wanted to congratulate you on your insight, and say keep up the good work. Now if YOU want to contact me, personally, by email, and you have access to the one I signed in under, by all means please do so.


    Blue Indy

    1. Thank you Blue! I don’t see why you think I am religious, though. Spiritual, maybe, but far from religious. Religion to me is dogmas, rules and belief. I am not about belief, but about knowing. I’ve been searching my whole life for the ‘truth’, and in my (re)search and my own experiences, logic, reasoning, feeling and comparing of many sources I have come to the conclusion that yes, our consciousness lives on, yes, it is more to ‘life’ than what we see around us and, yes, our thoughts can directly influence our reality, to mention only a few of my ‘findings’ and conclusions. Most, if not all, of my conclusions are also backed up by science. Actually, being called ‘religious’ feels a bit insulting, but still, I obviously only have my self to blame if someone sees me as that. I guess I have to write even more to back up my claims. Well, well. I have read hundreds of books and webpages and seen umpteen films in everything from sociology (I actually have a degree in that), psychology, parapsychology, music, quantum physics, vortex based mathematics, history, anthropology, you name it. Not to speak of my own confirming experiences. I know the truth for myself. I guess I am a combination of lazy and too unfocussed to actually convince and explain what I know to all people. But I guess I have to do that one day to stop people from believing I am ‘religious’. 🙂 And by the way, if someone have any actually sound arguments against my conclusions and findings, I am more than willing to reconsider what I know today. Because what I know now is only temporary anyway. Beyond my knowing today lies infinite coming understandings.

      And I think I have to take a closer look at Marx’s work. I’ve only browsed so far.

      I agree about the ‘selling’ notion of RBE, even though I don’t agree that we have to wrap this in any ‘capitalistic’ wrapping. The arguments of how the monetary system is totally failing is a good basis, I would say. Further, the idea of non-ownership, I really don’t think is that problematic. Especially not among the new generation, where most doesn’t own anything at all when they are young, and find it perfectly ok to be a user of what they need. Ownership and property (both physical, intellectual and artistic) are the main building blocks of capitalism. So to hold on to any of those is to hold on to some kind of capitalism if you ask me.

      Besides, young people today are less occupied with property and ownership, growing up in a co-creating Wikipedia world and where artistic and intellectual property is constantly challenged online. It is mostly the old generation, the ones who run the record companies and film studios that hold on to the property mindset.

      1. Hi, ADMIN: A couple of quick notes. I was not so much referring to YOU as religious – I’m new here so kind of unclear on that- but the TONE presented by other posters, who are , OF COURSE, entitled to those opinions and I would not have it otherwise. Like I said, ALL major religions should support this, but somehow I just know they won’t. I do not KNOW you, but generally speaking when someone says, “I’m spiritual, but not religious,” it really breaks down to : I’m a church of one. I suppose you could say I am too, in my own way.
        Perhaps my Unitarian background explains this?

        As far as how we present it, we will get much further in a Capitalist country wrapping it up a bit more – as some have called it when I told them about it – as the Ultimate Capitalism, WITHOUT the capital, that is, in the ability to possess “things”. Humans are greedy by nature, and however you may feel about it, that had evolutionary survival value. Now, it’s more of a hinderence.

        And as far as the young -I don’t know how old you are – but I heard a strange echo from the past. Really. The 1960’s. The Chicago 7, Abbie Hoffman. Off the pigs, Resist authority, the whole smear. WE WERE THE FIGHTERS AGAINST THIS SYSTEM. We were there, first.

        And now?

        WE BECAME THE SYSTEM WE FOUGHT. Never think it can’t happen again. Idealism dies with youth most of the time.. That is a major reason why we must be careful HOW we “sell” this.

        Wait until those young people are in their ’50’s and ’60’s. You’ll see, although I probably won’t.

        The Venus Project. I MUST look closer at that…

        1. Well, I don’t know about the greediness of human nature. As science shows today, most of so called ‘human nature’ is learned behavior. Thus, compassion and sharing can be learned just as much as greediness.

          About The Venus Project, there’s a chap that hasn’t lost the spirit of idealism in his older days. He’s 95. 😉

          And me? I’m 45, and only growing younger….

          1. GOD! I HAVE to say this! I AM IMPRESSED! I’ve read some more, in the article right above here.

            Quote: .” Imagine if there was no money. Right now. No money. Everything would still be there, wouldn’t it?”

            I open my book that way, very close to that!

            I know how Charles Darwin felt when he got the letter from Alfred Russell Wallace about Natural Selection. I will repeat what Darwin said in a letter back to Wallace: “Your very words stand as my chapter headings!”

            Beautiful! Maybe this is an idea whose time has come. It won’t be easy, not at all, because the wealthy will know what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of their political power. Totally.

            It will be resisted, and force will be used if this catches on too much. Where wealth goes, so goes power, and that power will not go quietly into the night…

            1. That was a fascinating exchange going on in that thread… I think what is at the heart of the matter is that capitalism exists because an exchange is made. At present no one can force another to buy brand a over brand b or to not buy either brand at all but rather either a) do without or b) barter for the use or ownership of it or c) get together with others and create a similar item that will fill the void.

              Doing without is a valid approach in a whole lot of circumstances yet we often feel it cannot be done because we have a consciousness that says ‘I must have’. Bartering is an old old way and perfectly serviceable if you are not chasing the profit motive. Getting together with others, or co-operatives, are really good practical places to hatch out the consciousness that might foster a RBE. There are many examples of co-operatives and trusts around the world that function sucessfully to already draw on.

              I sense that the bottom floor of an RBE is a consciousness shift amongst the world’s population, and maybe that will take an economic collapse or maybe it will be something we actually buy our way out of… Eventually I feel that the realisation will be made that money is the problem, and usuary the driver… It’s an interesting and absorbing unfolding…

  22. I think world needs equalistic united humanity order 2011-2015 …

    world is paying 80 trillion $ annual interest and its annual product is just 60 trillion $… to whom is the whole world working for? we must end all kinds of interest-based systems… money is not created to be sold… money can not be sold… if you have money make a real business or be a partner with someone who has a real business working for real things for humanity… earning by selling money is the root of all evils in this world… its the basics and cause of humanities slavery to just 1%.

    the world needs “equalistic united humanity order” euho , we should start stopping all kind of interest in all world. interest is prohibited in all belief on the earth. we unite to stop interest based economic,social activities as humans and by this way we start destroying capitalism enslaving system over humanity.


  23. I love the idea but i may be one in a million that does, most people have no concept of living without a currency, no manipulation, no lies, no finance, no greed, no affluent, no poor, no poverty, no hunger, no lying manipulating bankers. I am so very tired of this world and have never really agreed with its ideas or ideals, I long for the day when I wont have to see a destitute 1 out of 3 people. as each year passes I feel things are getting worse but we can not expect this world to switch to any system where the few can’t manipulate the masses. This is why i have come to the conclusion “no matter how bad things get they wont ever be bad enough to change them” ! oh they might pretend things are being changed but it’s all a farce, a fake or a sham. The people of the world may scream for justice but they will get nothing but welfare and they will have to fight to keep that! Things only change when people are willing to risk all they have to change them but that day will never come not until most lose all they have! Equality will always be an out of the world term and freedom will never be anything but rheteric!

  24. Also as to what extent we need so much technology. Computer modelling, taking care of large systems like the electricity grid, large-scale distribution of goods, transportation and the like- maybe. We don’t need cars (why not walk? Cycle? At most use public transport which is far more efficient?) and hydroponic farms (permaclture anyone?) Indeed if we were contientios in our use of resources, we might not need the macroeconomics, though whether some would tend towards greed without some level of restraint I doubt…

  25. The other presseing question I have to ask is how we get there. It’s not going to be, I think, about building up some centrally-planned system and assuming the world will fall into line. It’s about building up totally new mindsets from the bottom up- maybe living more simply, focussing our attentions on others, doing without money and sharing what we have. Then onto trying to petitioning the powers that be, and stop feeding The Man(TM)- the corporate interests and so on that promote greed and useless consumerism. Perhaps there is scope to modify larger-scale systems and infrastructure, but it too will have to start within the current system- it won’t disappear tomorrow.

  26. Since the TZM has split with the TVP it’s important that there should be some bridge building between the different RBE websites, I’m not saying that the TZM should take control of all of them, but they need to network with each other.

  27. Hi, Great job on the website, congratulations.

    Just a couple of points. I do believe that it would not be wise to abolish the concept of private property. I think people will always have some items that are sentimental to them that they would like to call their own and I see no problem with that. We have to remember that without a money system these items are worthless to anyone else.

    Also, I wish TZM wouldn’t critisize religion it achieves nothing, we will not change people religious beliefs. Actually, we can quite legitimately argue that an RBE would be the fullfillment of the scriptures. A return to Eden. (Not a Utopia though, of course).

    Thanks for your efforts.

    1. Hi! Thanks for your comment. I agree totally. Of course, you can call some things your own, it would be impossible not to. Like your underwear…, the drawing you just did, the dwelling you recide for the time being, a sentimental item, etc. There’s a couple of things you forget, though. One is that we never really own anything any way. See this article: www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2010/12/you-never-really-own-anything/

      Another thing is that a moneyless resource based gift economy, doesn’t have to be that different to what we have today. We will still ‘own’ stuff, as in ‘ keeping something in my possession as long as I am using it’, just like we are doing it today. The only difference is that we don’t have the devastating profit motive and ‘money logic’ in the things we do. We don’t have to think about ‘selling’ anything or ‘buying’ anything. And we don’t have to hoard a lot of stuff, filling up basements and attics.

      When it comes to religion, it is all about the common denominator that surpasses all religions, countries and cultures; Respect.
      As long as everybody respects everybody else, and treat each other with dignity, we don’t need anyone else to tell us what to do.

      By the way, this site is not affiliated with TZM, TVP or anyone else, but is an independent site for discussion of RBE.

      And thank you!

  28. Right iv read it and am *re-commenting, love it, its beautiful and i only wish it was put in place already yesterday.

    i could go on for hours about all the evil that is in our world at this sad immature period in time. I’m not going to this as deep in everyone’s hearts we know this already, there is too much wrong right now. the best thing to do is distance yourself from any negativity and focus on some positivity, i.e a RBE:)

    her is an idea and some of my positive energy towards this emotional intellectual concept for a greater society. I’m a cook and am starting up a small business I’m busy doing my costing and am finding the cheapest suppliers so i can start my great serves to man by marking up my goods and ripping off my customers so i can make some profit and live in this evil time we call now. what i will say and that is that i hated working in restaurants. working 6 days a week 1,674 hours in a month is enough to make the greatest food lover hate food. why i bring this up is for this reason. I’m imaging myself working in a venus project type city and trying to establish a way that would make people more excited about making the transition and wanting to working for a new reward and not just some pieces of paper. so her is my idea. firstly its obviously necessary to recognizes all the jobs that have to be done. like a chors list in in a home on the fridge. Then make a rosta and see who’s going to do what.

    if i think about myself i don’t see myself as being of much importance to society but never the less an essential. someones got to flip the patties:) and at the same time wish i could be greater and could contribute more in different areas with in my qualification and possible in different fields if i had more time to educate myself. to make live more exciting.

    ok lets look at me for a second. I’m a qualified chef but don’t just want to work in the restaurant business. here is a list of things in my profession i could do in the RBE.

    give lesson on how to bake and cook different dishes.
    give kids classes doubling up as a baby sitter.
    advise people with better and healthier eating plans.
    manage food distribution around the city.
    help in the farming and the agricultural sector.
    help in the designing of automated kitchens.
    work at a main eating hall but not doing the same repetitive menu and working with the same staff for 1,674 hours in 30 days for years on end. rather working with more healthy menus and in different kitchens all around the city, with different people and not a grooling 1,674 hours a month because a lot more time will be spent, teaching, distributing, baby sitting, talking to people about the next healthy tips and discovers about food or milking a cow or whatever. Anything to just break the repetitive cycle of making food and selling it at a marked up price for profit, it kills!

    in a nut shell my idea is that people should want to be greater and more divers in their field and one day in others as we become a smarter world. Then in a thousand years from this point on you could be a doctor and cooking meals the next week for your community if you so wish and signed up for, maybe you’d like to become a better cook? i think that people would be far happier off doing a couple of different and divers jobs. for example if a person at a desk job had the opportunity to burn some energy and take kids for swimming lesson maybe they would, or take the “animals” for a walk in a park. ( maybe there would be a community pet center where people can get in touch with a variety of animals. not a zoo and entrance is free.) in stead of being in your hamster cage (desk job) and then taking a spin on your exercise wheel (gym) you could utilize that energy better by burning off calories in a much more useful way. something that i should also point out is you wouldn’t have to go to gym nearly as much as you do if you lived in a RBE as the food you ate would be far healthier because it would not be SOLD only for profit but rather distributed for befitting you and the society as a whole. Trust me, take this advise from someone who has been in the restaurant business for three years. iv seen things that no man would consider ingesting if they just know what went into that recipe.

    i wish i was a lot of things that helped my world.

    1. Hi Razz, thanks for a great comment!

      Actually, I think this could stand alone as an article. If you don’t mind, I’d like you to put it up as an article also, so it comes on the first page.

      These are the comments/articles I’ve been waiting for. Like how ‘ordinary’ people will tackle RBE, and how they look at it. And the restaurant business is one area I have wondered about…

      Very good!!

      1. Happy you enjoyed it and I’m glad to be of serves.

        Here’s an idea for a new system of reward. Besides feeling wonderful from breaking out the mundane of having a single repetitive job like majority of people do in this money based economy. There is possibly another way of motivating people to want to work and live in a system that will greater our civilization and clean our environment.

        Leisure Time!

        The argument goes like this. “but if you going to give me free food and housing and tell me I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to then who is going to make my coffee at the cafe because everyone is just going to stay home and watch DVD’s?” we all need leisure time to recharge our body and mind, more so when we down and out from feelings of everyone clawing at you and one another to get to the top. Everyone needs to do things to keep their minds and bodies busy. Unless you aspire to having a fork lift funeral where the whole neighborhood come and watch you finally leave your place where you once upon a time took rest from life with its little motivation or disappointing emptiness and started a unhealthy twinkies binge. In a world were science has grown at an alarming exponential rate it should be easy to see how many calories we will need to burn doing whatever type work you have planned on the rosta, for that particularly day. Your chors for that month would be sent off to the central intelligence database that could accurately prescribe a healthy choice of menus to choose from and to follow that day. Depending on weight height and the tasks you would get issued your necessary calorie in take. In my profession I’ve seen devastating wastage where goods were not sold in time for net profit and then thrown away. I worked for an insurance company where I threw tons of food in the dustbin. Eventually it got to me and I went to go speak to the head manager about starting up a program where the food could be given to people in need but the idea was rejected as the company felt they might be held liable if anyone got sick, so we just let them starve instead. You can see just how wasteful out system is with money always on everyone’s minds.

        I see no difference in one healthy 46 chromosome perfectly formed person from one to the next might you come from mars. As long as you have all five senses, two legs and two arms in my eyes you’re just like me and capable to send a man to the moon or make a cup of coffee. We are all one and the same only dived by environment. The reason why I bring this up is so that people can understand that no one is truly superior and it proves that no one should be praised by their monetary value or even intellect but rather acknowledged. We could all be rocket science had we had the great opportunity of a well nourished brain, support from community, and the means to great teachers.

        You have many different peers as you work in many areas of the city, your healthy because you’ve been eating healthy and perform necessary exercise in a helpful way, you feel happy and one with your environment knowing your important in the bigger scheme of things. all in all your happier for your world and its people because you know we all doing our best to help one another and our mother earth.

        Now days all time is, is money and you can’t buy time.

        After saying all of that. This is my main point in the paragraphs below. If everyone was cared for like a family cares for each member the way need be, with the essentials of life, shelter, food and love what else is really needed?

        Time! ‘Pay’ people in time by recording, the kilojoules they put in, balanced with the ideas and intellectual power they bring forward. People will want to be energetic intellects. If our leisure time was measured by your intellectual energy and physical work we put forward in society you wouldn’t have fat lazy slobs but rather people aspiring to be smart and helpful. If you’re not obsessed with making more and more money you could take more time to stay fit and healthy and a healthy body is a healthy mind. People choose and shape reality with their minds; healthy people will shape a healthier planet in all aspects. I must add, intellects scoring SLIGHT better time points wouldn’t want to just lay in the island sun, after all these folk are driven by wanting to help and contribute. In my opinion if you’re helping billions with an invention or helping some one with a new heart its easier waking up knowing your great. Waking up to work for another 1, 674 hour day of the month, at the same joint, serving the same unhealthy over priced food to the boss’s customers to make him more net profit; It makes it a bit harder getting up. Did I mention the shit pay and zero recognition I feel?

        Give people motivation and recognition as equals in a colony (the anthill called earth) by allowing them the time to go with family or friends on vacations.


        Think of the billion people that aren’t contributing that lack in confidants and don’t understand that they physical no different from the Queen of England, how frustrated they must feel knowing we cant put food on their plate when we physically able to put a man on the moon.

  29. I haven’t yet read the article but i will recommend once i have but for now ill say this.

    there is loads of criticism and who knows what Peter Joseph hit on the nail, he is very wise either way. One thing, we unfortunately WONT live in a resources based economy any time soon, the people that could change it in a flash are too greedy, self consumed or just don’t want to see and believe in this better way of life. It will evidently be our demise if we don’t see that there is a limit to OUR resources and our current life style. years from now we will look back and see the thinkers of a resource based economy as revolutionary thinkers ahead of their time or we wont see dick because we will have self destructed. 2in1 we are, the smart but dumb too:( ( I would WORK hard and LIVE better in a world that felt like it gave a shit!)

    there many confusions. on the one hand religion helps people with identity, giving them norms and values of how to live and treat one another. This brings people together. on the flipped side this bringing of identity and way of life separates GROUPS of people, in-turn dividing people MORE from one another when we are all actually one and the same. Religion has expired and we need to move on. No one will save us, we have to save ourselves from ourselves.

    Something else that i must point out is how lots see the resource based economy as a one world government. it should be seen more as a one world conscious that looks out for everyone and most importantly the one thing that looks after us, the world. Why cant we return the favor by keeping her beautiful and alive more like she was when we were born those years back?

    1. There is a problem with saying that ‘religion has expired, no-one will save us’. The reality is one where there is a God, though of course I will not try and ‘prove’ this logically- you have to ‘know’ for yourself. (though if you want to se God’s power at pwork in the world today,you could do worse than to read, say, Jackie Pullinger’s ‘Chasing the Dragon’ and many such biographical accounts.) The other reality is that there is sin, which doesn’t mean we are automatically greedy of violent by nature, no, but we are imperfect and have the capacity for such things. And unless that is overcome, the chances of actually achieving a perfect world of this type may well end in failure. That said, I applaud every effort, regardless of belief, and am glad for what is taking place. Trying to save ourselves wil not get us all the way- Jesus can.

      It is unfortunate to that some of faith choose to wall themselves off or start conflict- which as a Christian I cannot condone. True we are not to be ‘of the world’ but that means not being like the world and not loving the way it is- we must still be in it. We are called on to be peacemakers, not to make war on people but to love even our enemies. At the same time, Jesus did say he had come not to bring peace but division- which would inevitably follow as those stuck in their ‘sin’ would be against us.(This includes those who defend the presentstate of affairs).

      But this is not to say I want to find some common ground with some others involved in this site or the like. Sharing, lack of true ownership and working for mutual behnefit, giving freely of oneself are all part ofChristian teaching and values. Sadly, with me personally, I have a long way to go… even Christians are not perfect overnight.) All I’m saying is to encourage people to Jesus, too.

      1. There could be a letter just like this from a member of every religion. But if you take the non trivial content of each then the basic guidelines from all religions are the same – respect for and cooperation with fellow people – the core aim of RBE.

        45 years ago in Kenya where I was born, at the age of 15, I breached my religious bounds (sikhism) and embraced the common good in all religions and discarded any divisive or ‘my religion is the only true religion’ type of nonsense or any attempts at ‘proof’ – there will be proof enough after death and we all have that as a guarantee (at least with the present state of technology)

        It really does not matter if you are a good christian or a good bhuddist or a good hindu or a good sikh or a good atheist, its all good (non capitalization of religion names is intentional).

        In other words let us step past this and instead focus our efforts on pushing RBE till it happens. (I don’t anticipate it succeeding in my lifetime but want to give what energy I have left towards it)

        My main concern is (as per my comment under human nature) we need to anticipate every barrier ahead and discuss and chart ways to address those barriers.

        I have suggested maintaining a spreadsheet with problems and solutions. I am excited by the Atlas City initiative – but so far have seen little of any plan I think they have had website hacking problems)

        It is not going to be easy – just goodwill to all and being kind to those who oppose is not going to be enough to make it happen – we need project planners, designers , engineers, architects, teachers, doctors, chemists, software designers and programmers, construction workers, materials – my point is where is this plan?

        I have no doubt the first attempt will encounter opposition from every beneficiary of the current monitory system – how are we to plan for this ?
        Will banks help the building of a system that will eliminate their profits?
        Will any government support this? Or will it be labelled thru media as a rebellious treasonous act and destroyed accordingly?

        To imagine that the current system vested interests will just lie down and let RBE happen is naive.

      2. Pardon me for practicing on this forum but I need to practice these discussions before I really start trying to implement an RBE in Denver. I thank those that oppose the movement and voice their concerns as its really helpful. Let me start with Robert.

        Robert’s first objection is that there is no ecological point of no return and no Malthusian meltdown point. Starting with the world population, Malthus was right..at the time. Malthus did not anticipate the industrial revolution and the power of fossil fuels, I’m going to cheat here and use this article to explain more clearly. ourfiniteworld.com/2012/12/12/why-malthus-got-his-forecast-wrong/ . Another example Robert might be using is Norman Borlaug, he was another figure that increased world food production. In both cases the argument is still valid, here is my exceeding simple reason why. Our world economy requires growth in order to function, this is a bedrock concept. We live in a finite world, hopefully this isn’t argued either- the earth is not expanding or anything. If the economy requires growth for essential functionality and the earth remains finite, at some point (when is completely debatable) we WILL exceed the resources the earth will provide. If you look at the history of population growth the human species you will quickly see that our population rate is explosive. You will not see any other natural process that has growth like this unless you look at the reproduction of a virus. Robert does have a good point about space, we CAN have an economic growth as an essential part of our economy if we start to venture out to the rest of the solar system and consume those resources. Funny enough this is exactly how virus works, it surpasses the carrying capacity of one system and spreads to another. One thing about living in space is you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone. Radiation exposure, lack of gravity, air, meteoroid impacts- It’s easy to die in space. What do you need to live on Mars for example? Radiation protection, water, oxygen, air pressure and a regenerative food supply. Funny enough money wasn’t part of that important list of needs. What you would need to have to stay alive in space is essentially an RBE!
        I think I’m getting ahead of myself here, lets just keep the conversation on earth for this debate. Robert objected to how we would control our population. The only conclusion he could come to was a dictator governing those actions. No part of the concept of an RBE had ingrained in it a dictator, these are the fears of Robert (and others) seeping into the debate. Let me say this, currently we, as a human species, DO exceed our quota of children and they are not aborted, no one is sterilized, it’s worse. Children are born only to slowly starve to death, one every few minutes. I find it interesting that this fact doesn’t spin people up at all. What Robert says next really shows how we as a society view the world. Robert states “The earth is not a fragile flower, it’s a strong resilient ongoing resource for us to exploit and it’s capable of sustaining us and helping us carry forward into the future indefinitely.” That simple statement says it all. Currently, we view the
        planet as an inexhaustible resource made for our exploitation and convenience. That we are separate from the earth and superior to it. This is true Eco-cidal thinking. People thought lake Erie was so enormous that they could dump all of their industrial waste into it. It was so huge and available for our exploitation and capable of sustaining us into the future, then lake Erie caught on fire! There goes that idea, we quickly exceeded the abundance of lake Erie. Easter Island is another great example of resource exploitation to the brink and beyond. Robert says he’s for conservation and using resources responsibly, liar liar pants on fire. If he did, then he would agree with environmentalism which IS conservation and using our resources responsibly, respectfully and to the fullest.

        Robert’s second objection is about anthropogenic climate change, he refutes it. If humans aren’t causing climate change than there is no reason to take different actions. CO2 retains heat, indisputable. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing steadily since the industrial revolution, indisputable. Our atmosphere and oceans have so many interactions and variables that I must hand it to climatologists for tackling such an impossible task. NOAA, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, MIT, NASA and so many other respected institutions all directly attribute our CO2 emissions to the rapid changes in our climate. Is it a theory? Of course. Einstein’s theory of relativity is only a theory yet we use algorithms based off of his theory to attain accurate GPS locations. I like how people who refute theories never take into account how well supported a theory is. My theory that I’ll lose weight eating cake is a theory, a terrible one! I have no evidence for it, tons of evidence against it. Obviously my eat cake lose weight theory should not be held in the same confidence as the theory of relativity or anthropogenic climate change. Robert says we shouldn’t institute life changing policies based on a theory (in this case AGW). Economics is a theory and we base some VERY life changing policies on it. Robert’s last point is that zeitgeist and RBE is as much a political action group as a body espousing economic change. Robert, yes you got us. I would like to add one last fact to all of this. The term economics was shortened from Political Economics because the two are inseparable.

Leave a Reply