I wonder what Jacque Fresco: (Futurist) would think of nyoc.

I have been intrigued with Jacque Fresco's futurism.

I was revisiting his philosophy and ideas. One line in particular:

As artificial intelligence develops, machines will be assigned the tasks of complex decision-making in industrial, military and governmental affairs. This would not imply a take-over by machines. Instead, it would be a gradual transfer of decision-making processes to machine intelligence as the next phase of social evolution.

Could nyoc and DACs lead us to our next social evolution?

Jacque is still alive and living in Florida in one of his futuristic designed houses. Would love to present him with nyoc and DACs and see what he thinks... :)

Here is an excerpt from their site... interesting to read. It truely is an alt univserse in my mind, but could lead to some inspriration by those on this forum.

An Obsolete Monetary System

The money-based system evolved centuries ago. All of the world's economic systems - socialism, communism, fascism, and even the vaunted free enterprise system - perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism, and racism, primarily based on economic disparity. As long as a social system uses money or barter, people and nations will seek to maintain the economic competitive edge or, if they cannot do so by means of commerce they will by military intervention. We still utilize these same outmoded methods.

Our current monetary system is not capable of providing a high standard of living for everyone, nor can it ensure the protection of the environment because the major motive is profit. Strategies such as downsizing and toxic dumping increase the profit margin. With the advent of automation, cybernation, artificial intelligence and out sourcing, there will be an ever-increasing replacement of people by machines. As a result, fewer people will be able to purchase goods and services even though our capability to produce an abundance will continue to exist.

Our present, outmoded political and economic systems are unable to apply the real benefits of today's innovative technology to achieve the greatest good for all people, and to overcome the inequities imposed upon so many. Our technology is racing forward yet our social designs have remained relatively static. In other words cultural change has not kept pace with technological change. We now have the means to produce goods and services in abundance for everyone.

Unfortunately, today science and technology have been diverted from achieving the greatest good for reasons of self-interest and monetary gain through planned obsolescence sometimes referred to as the conscious withdrawal of efficiency. For example, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, whose function is presumed to be conducting research into ways of achieving higher crop yields per acre, actually pays farmers not to produce at full-capacity. The monetary system tends to hold back the application of these methods that we know would best serve the interests of people and the environment.

In a monetary system purchasing power is not related to our capacity to produce goods and services. For example, during a depression, there are computers and DVD's on store shelves and automobiles in car lots, but most people do not have the purchasing power to buy them. The earth is still the same place; it is just the rules of the game that are obsolete and create strife, deprivation and unnecessary human suffering.

A monetary system developed years ago as a device to control human behavior in an environment with limited resources. Today money is used to regulate the economy not for the benefit of the general populace, but for those who control the financial wealth of nations.

http://thevenusproject.com/extras/faq

Comments

  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
    Funny enough we had one person at the London meetup tonight debating the merits of a cyber-nation. It immediately reminded me of the Venus Project.

    That said, I think DACs (at least as they are defined today) actually are the diametrical opposite of the 'resource based economy' model offered by Fresco. The Venus Project is akin to computerized central planning attempting to make the most of our global resources. DACs on the other hand 'want' to be as efficient as possible, and do not take into account underlying available resources (because they are not aware of them).

    For example, StorJ relocates its storage layer only because it seeks to minimize its costs of operations, not taking into account that one datacenter could detrimental to the environment.

    Hayek would have a field day :)
  • ddink7ddink7 Member Posts: 49
    Ursium, could you post a summary of your meetup? I'd be interested in hearing what the London group had to say!
  • ryujiyuuryujiyuu Member Posts: 1
    nyoc does seem to be inline with Jacque Fresco's futurism as well as much of what is talked about in the "Singularity". It will be exciting to watch how this protocol evolves. Seeing as how commercialized and walled-off the internet has become, an emergence of new decentralized protocols for the exchange of value were inevitable and they should give people the ability to (collectively) take back what is rightfully theirs... we maybe witnessing the re-building of the web!
  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
  • PlatonicgapPlatonicgap Member Posts: 11
    edited January 2014
    Some careful rules will need to be laid out for DACs. Or we'll have a Matrix style eventuality and end up as batteries (our highest and best use to a machine).

    This debate is one for the books. Cerebral entertainment at its finest. Zeitgeist's Peter Joseph Vs. Stephan Molyneux. Stephan is right about most things, if not perhaps a little dogmatic about voluntary adoption of the non-aggression axiom and his disregard for imperfect information in markets, as well as free-market solutions to the tragedy of the commons (I don't think this is realistic).

    I appreciate Vitalik's insight into decentralized vs centralized problems; tragedy of the commons problems being a centralized problem. To solve this democratically we could support the cause/currency of our choice at no marginal cost to each individual other than small exchange fees and exchange rate risk, which would be inversely proportional to market cap/liquidity of the currency.

    My insight here is that people would tend toward the larger market cap currencies in order to mitigate above mentioned risks, a tendency that would consolidate power under a hand full of banners. Hopefully the market would act rationally and choose the right causes, and not tend toward a coercive welfare state as a result. As it stands in 2014 the world doesn't tend toward reason. It tends toward welfare, justin beiber and dogecoin. Maybe a future populous will be more enlightened? I'm hoping societal changes brought about by bitcoin lead to a new paradigm in thought, and those seeking zero-sum solutions are placed into the dustbin of history.

    And finally, more likely than not, I figure most would transact in bitcoin and ether, essentially making above comments a non-issue.

    Post edited by Platonicgap on
  • PlatonicgapPlatonicgap Member Posts: 11
    edited January 2014
    And finally, more likely than not, I figure (the vast majority) would transact in bitcoin and ether, essentially making above (concerns) a non-issue.
    Post edited by Platonicgap on
or to comment.