Resource Allocation: A Flaw in the Resource Based Economy Model

There appear to be projections in these examples, and in this discussion generally?

1. If science and technology are truly unleashed, free from the constraints of the monetary system, and they are also allowed to properly research some things which are considered ‘beyond the pale’ by present-day ‘scientists’, but not necessarily the ‘scientific method’, isn’t it entirely possible that humanity will actually begin creating its own ‘resources’ via nanotechnology et al.? We seem to be seeing the beginnings of this already even within the current socio-economic model. Together with the possibility of discovering, locating, etc. other resources to be intelligently managed, and even potentially created artificially/synthetically as well, will something always necessarily be scarce?

2. Most discussions I’ve seen and had with people about ‘decision-making’ suggest that human needs take priority? Is it worth people perhaps asking themselves if they would like a  research lab that could potentially be researching (among other things) cures for ‘dis-ease’, whose location is important for some reason, to be prevented from being located there for the sake of a ‘beautiful view’, which I suspect will be more commonplace in a system which impacts far less on the environment and enables more places of ‘natural beauty’ to be available with the benefits of the new socio-economic system fully available wherever the housing is located? And of course the question about what constitutes a ‘beautiful view’ for people? And if we don’t prioritise basic needs, such as clean water as quoted in your example, health is compromised and potentially disables people from enjoying ‘social enjoyment’ and other needs? Does this perhaps create a ‘sensible’ system of prioritisation?

3. ‘Dis-eases’ like cancer can already be prevented and cured simply by not living in the current system! Many are already tried, tested and available (e.g. refined extracted cannabis oil), but are not made available in this system. Diabetes is largely treatable with an essentially vegan raw food diet, etc. Stress – or more precisely, dis-stress rather than eu-stress – is one of the major factors in any dis-ease state. When living becomes that, rather than struggling and competing for money to obtain the essentials of physical life, and then doing the same things to defend them once obtained, many (if not the majority of) ‘modern-day dis-eases’ will disappear. Epigenetic studies also confirm that even many genetic predispositions will only give rise to dis-ease when triggered by the environment. So even these predispositions may well lessen in time.

Just some thoughts. With the future being nothing but a thought/s, it’s always being created right now. So if we can be clear now about what constitutes such things as ‘health’ and ‘well being’, and using the parameters which have been proven to hold true, together with constant updating with new information as it becomes available, perhaps we can prevent or minimise projecting from the current mindset and value system perpetuated by the present system? And we still appear to be talking in an ‘either/or’ duality, rather than an ‘and/and’ inclusive way? Why isn’t it possible to have housing and a research lab in the one building?

I knew I should have used better examples…I ‘m disappointed that people are critisizing the examples themselves rather than the theory. I’m also disappointed by those answers that are so obviously dogmatic of TVP “this isn’t just another ism”, “read TVP FAQ” etc are just regurgitations of the usual TVP propaganda with little individual thought.

“Things will be different in the future” and “there won’t be any scarcity in the future” are also not acceptable responses. We don’t know what the future will hold, and any kind of projections are based purely on opinion. Social behaviour is a complex and difficult to predict science, I do not believe that anyone here possesses the ability to make accurate predictions, with all due respect. We also cannot take for granted that we will automatically solve ALL medical problems, or scientific problems, just because “it’s an RBE”. That really IS utopian.

The point I was trying to raise is that we will have to organise some kind of PRIORITISATION system. While this may be possible, it will certainly pose some difficult dilemnas and possibly a whole new way of “arriving at decisions”.

That all said, there are some good points made in these responses. I do think that the answer will lie in some kind of “Direct Democracy” – a Peer to Peer society with an instant feedback loop facilitated by the internet – is a likely solution to the decision making process.

Didn’t Nash essentially solve this, or at least present the beginings of the solution?

OK I will not criticize your examples but rather your entire theory. First part of a resource based economy is not allocating but rather surveying the resource available. This surveying is not done in the dark or secretly but open and transparently, so as to allow everyone the chance to basically check “stocks.” The flaw in your arguement is you are assuming that materials/resources are just simply used but you for get that the point of this system is to be sustainable, that by definition requires constant replenishment whether the resource is used or not. We must find a way to replace it we are smart enough, Look at chemistry we have “made” elements in laboratories that students study about as if it were natural. Further more the “indexing” argument is just to childish, living in a resource based economy does not mean all culture, morality etc is gone quite contrary, it forces people, individually and social to re-evalute their cultures allowing them to discard the non-essentials and maintaining the essentials. Now who is to say what is and isn’t essential. Just the people who are concerned about that issue or those who live in the effected areas, not every single person on the planet. You are assuming we are all going to have the same culture, no that is a fundamentally flawed argument, the only major similarity might be the fact that we all believe in advance human intellect and enhancing life for all things on earth. I laughed at your view argument, I am not criticizing your example just the foundation for it. If the people involved use the empirical knowledge granted to them by the cosmos they realize this thing known as comprimise which has existed since the begining of time, see with this infinite resource, compromise that is, it opens many options for agreement. maybe it could become a home/work facility among other things.

My advice to you is to realize that this resource based economy is something that has never been done, thinking in the same manner as you thought about the monetary-market economy is like put stripes on a lion to make it a Zebra, it doesn’t work (cultural Idiom for you lol) so you must force your brain to think other than it has for ages. I would say think outside the box but that’s to cliche so i will say it is time for a major paradigm shift like never before and it takes all of us. I Hope I have been clear i wish i could explain further but time wont permit. I wish we could dialogue like humans but I am called back to my slavery lol

From this article ‘Imagine we live in a “Resource Based Economy”, [...] We have abundance of many things [...] However, it will not take long for the following situation to arise; a limited quantity of a specific resource will force us into having to make a decision on the allocation of these resources.’ // RBE Discussion Comments: You are right, but instead of a committee making a majority decision (which leaves a minority out) using their biases and prejudices,  a decision will be arrived at by using our handy dandy “calculator/computer/cybernated intelligence”  which can take into account the multiple variables associated with the shortfall or “scarce” resource using a systems approach.  The program will identify possible alternatives for the resource, current research taking place and timelines to production of such alternatives, current inventory of the current resource and optimal allocation/use of that resource while production of the alternative is in progress.  The systems approach will work to alleviate the conflict that you’re hinting at as an inherent flaw.  No, that’s an inherent flaw in our current system.  Think outside the box, go BOX shopping…The system works to constantly upgrade to the newest and most relevant technology and apply that technology to balance resource availability against demand and use.

For me this is a question of government. If we remove money from the equation and moved to a purely resource based model of economics this doesn’t necessarily mean anarchy, just a different for of governance. Sadly it does not seem likely that current political powers will see the resource based model and think “a society in which no one starves to death, everyone can pursue their dreams without fear of destitution and crime will hit lows previously only dreamed of? Sounds great to me!”, so a new government will probably be in order, but maybe at a localised level. We will still need all the trappings of a civilised society including police, doctors, firemen etc… Murders will still happen, people will still get sick and cats will still get stuck up trees.

I also agree that if this model were adopted overnight, there would initially be a huge number of problems with people who had lived and worked in the current socio-economic system. I would imagine jealousy and arguments would initially be rife as the concept of ownership is so deeply ingrained. Indeed it would possibly be even harder to resolve some problems since neighbourhood arguments over who owns which bit of the fence and who needs to prune which bush would still take place, but no one would really know the answer. Furthermore, trying to explain to my grandmother that an algorithm will give her the answer would probably lead to another argument. I also don’t buy that people will give over all menial tasks to mechanisation, some of us like fixing fences and pruning bushes. So we would probably need a group of peers to make some decisions on our behalf, a court system as it were, hopefully with a lot more time on their hands with the huge drop in crime so that problems would be resolved quickly, with common sense and without hurting anyone. Maybe there could be a voluntary task force who just go and solve small issues with intervention (possibly fixing the fence). For big issues like drug treatments or resource consents I can’t look any further that a jury of peers, since a pre-programmed algorithm would have contain the unfair influence of those writing the program. With no money to worry about there would be no risk of the jury being bribed and with a huge number of people with plenty of time on their hands you could propose the dilemma to a jury of thousands creating the fairest answer possible.

However as the system developed and new generations came through educated a new way they would accept the reality with which they were presented, it would become the norm and after about 50 years we would have forgotten all about ownership arguments because a robot would have trimmed all the bushes for us anyway and cancer would be thing of the past.

You are exactly right my friend about the very last sentence of your article. The point of the Resource Based Economy is not that it is perfect, but simply, a much more sane way of everyone just getting along with one another and receiving their basic needs. In our current monetary system we are all spiraling down and if we do not do something to change it then we will all be in dire conditions reminiscent of past systems that we thought we evolved from. A Resource based economy is the best thing that we can think up for now. There may well be a better form of economy then a RBE, but a RBE is the best thing that we can come up with for now. Once we actually start to have the important conversations with one another and actually start to do something about it, all that will happen in our current system is that millions of people will continue to suffer and die for no reason. In a RBE millions of people will suffer and die, but it will not be for the same reasons as what we currently have now. Newer strategies will be allowed to emerge because of the freedom that science has in that system. My only hope is that we can all just agree that this is the next step in our social evolution and instead discuss how and what we can do to get there.

I appreciate the article as I’ve been looking for honest criticisms of RBE for the purposes of objectivity. I believe this is a valid criticism. On the other hand, in the current systems we see massive inequalities in terms of resource distribution, we see disagreements over the allocation of resources, some that even lead to wars, and massive inefficiencies in how scarce resources are used. Thus, while RBE may not be able to solve this, it may not bring any new problems to the table in this area and could even improve the current state of affairs here significantly.

That said, my biggest concern is who makes the decisions in an RBE? Joseph says computer modeling will, but computer models are created by humans and humans are self interested. There needs a system of checks and balances at a minimum here. Lots of questions… Lots of problems with the current systems… Lots of research and testing needs to be done here IMO.

Hey guys, trnashumanism is only possible with a ressource based economy. why? because it doesn`t adhere to the monetary market economy which can`t produce Long Lasting things or in the medicine healing things. Treating is more profitable like healing. And this principle works thorught all the areas of economy: health, industry, high-tech,etc, etc. The so called “flaws” mentioned here will be solved. i personaly working on this too. And a RBE is the only System which can be altered and continously be improved in times of processcycles of feddbak Loops like many Areas of Automation Engineering are working well too The former System unitl now can;t Change an be very flexible, they only try to Keep conservatively the Status quo at any costs.

While its very respectable of you to analyze this idea critically, the good news is that we can overcome that obstacle in a number of ways. First of all, allocation itself is a method of ensuring a necessary resource is distributed where it is most needed, but only in a situation where said resource is finite. Most finite resources that we currently utilize, i.e. fossil fuels, can be replaced or in some other way rendered sustainable TODAY given our technological advances. In addition to this, those finite resources that can’t yet be replaced because of their basic and unique properties (to the extent of our knowledge) can be recycled, instead of wasted in city large garbage dumps, never to be accessed again. In a world without money, without the necessity for ownership or the existence of market competition, even finite resources would be abundant. Rather than 8 companies producing essentially the same product, which is designed to fail and be replaced in a short amount of time, everyone would have access to products that they need to function in society, pursue happiness and enjoyment in life, and fortify our social aspects whenever they need it. Not only that, but because these products wouldn’t be hampered by wasteful competition and cost-effectiveness, every one of these products would be the best, most efficient product scientifically available to us as a society. This is what we dream of as human beings in the modern age, and its possible now. My last point: Think of how much quicker technology and innovation would skyrocket if most of us weren’t spending the majority of our days in a redundant, pointless job, making someone else a whole lot more money, only to be put out of work by a machine, and instead could spend that time bettering ourselves, educating ourselves, having ideas and having the time and energy to act on and explore them, generally enjoying and fortifying a positive outlook on life, and living in a society where by helping others we can’t help but to help ourselves. But to really wrap up my point here, I think the real question is, don’t we have a problem with allocation now? Millions die of starvation every year while others waste thousands of dollars worth of food, regardless of the fact that our technology allows us to overcome hunger. If we can get rid of poverty, crime, sickness and scarcity by getting rid of money in today’s technologically advanced world, doesn’t taking some time to figure out a fair way to distribute resources seem worth it? Its definitely not as difficult as starving and literally being able to do nothing about it. And that’s we’re the majority is headed in our current system (not sensationalism, this is a fact we can see based on both history, science and math) What you see as a pivotal flaw, I see as a minor speedbump. Nobody said this has to be a perfect system, but even a flawed version of this system is a whole hell of a lot better than the world we live in today.

I think that the best solution to these issues is to take the best from all of our previous governance/economic models.

With Social Decision making, we can employ a democratic vote. Everyone in the area near this proposed building site would vote on what the local area wants more, a housing unit, or a research facility.

Take a page from capitalism’s book and use competitiveness. We just create a game out of our work, and people who excel in there field would be rewarded with recognition by their peers. Which is a very important hum,an need. If your basic needs of life are met, I imagine that recognition alone would incentivize people.

To take from Socialism, Instead of resisting technological advance in terms of automation of production, because the machines will steal every ones jobs. We let the machines take our jobs, and we all have to work less. The big difference between Socialism and resource based economy, it that in Socialism, every one has to work hard and get payed the same, regardless of skill, or experience, for the good of the people.

The resource based economy relies on embracing automated production, distribution, and delivery, so that there would be few menial jobs to do. So more people could become artists, academics, researchers, and docters

In regards to the cancer dilemma. People would die from lack of access equally all over the world, and there would also be a concerted effort to train enough people and develop enough resources so we could meet the demand, so the the scarcity is resolved.

Unfortunately, not every one can be saved. But in our current model, people die from lack of access to medical treatment all the time, but concentrated in certain populations. Only the rich countries can get the cancer medications for every one. But children die in the third world because the don’t have access to something as simple as re-hydration salts.

It isn’t because we don’t have the resources, we have the drugs, but there is no profit motive in giving cheap generic drugs to the humans that need them most.

So the resource based economy isn’t perfect, and of course there will be scarcity.

But there are a couple of things that a resource based economy would do to increase the value of our resources. Because there is not profit motive, all products would be designed to last as long as possible, be easily repairable, Parts would be universal, and designed to be replaceable. Products would also be designed to recycle efficiently.

There would be no need for unnecessary packaging to aid in marketing an item, and products that are not needed for everyday use would be “lent” from an item library.

Say you want to shoot a film, so you need a bunch of technical equipment but when you’ve finished, you don’t need that equipment anymore, so someone else can use it.

You when you need that one specialized tool to do a job, well, you could borrow it and use, and bring it back, rather than buying it, using it once, then having it sit in a drawer some where for a couple of years.

Hi, these are interesting arguments, the resource based economy is full of challenges that also shed light on our current financial system, and that’s one reason why it’s so useful.
The issue you raise though is one that is prevalent under capitalism also, for example planning legislation dictates that certain buildings can be built in certain places, most health care systems discriminate in favour of the wealthy in some way – the list goes on.. The point I would consider is that upon any decision the basis for choice would be a mixture of a number of factors in a climate of far greater communication and cooperation.
If people have a stake in their circumstances then the likelihood is they’ll be able to come to an agreement, and on the moral case – organ transplantation or blood transfusion for example, such decisions would cause no more problems than they currently do – the difference I would hope would be that there would be complete transparency as to how such decisions came about – in some cases with an algorithm, in others through cooperation.

First let me say i absolutely respect the questions your asking and the perceived flaws in the resouce based economy.

Allow me to attempt to correct your way of thinking.

In the resource based economy, one lives in a much much higher standard of living then we do now. We will never run out of resources to treat any patient with ANY medical illness because the only resources we need are man. Man makes the tools that builds the hardware that supports the software MAN created which operates a system MAN uses. In our current economy the only reason we run out of anything is FUNDING. The resources never cease to exist. The reason MAN chooses to limit themselves is MONEY. The theory is…. give man everything they need to survive in a loving, nourishing, non violent environment where their BASIC HUMAN NEEDS are met at the highest standard, will they then volunteer their services for the simple goal of our species survival? Based soley on this theory, the allocation of resources will be equal. In this current system…you have to create problems to create profit…in our system..the only problems that exist are the ones essential to our survival. Which are non self destructive problems. When you live on a planet with finite resources endorsing a system that promotes bottomless individualism and consumption for the sake of earning more money is an end game.