Technology, Money and the Future.

I have this nagging idea in my mind that I have been thinking about for some time, and I have never been to really articulate it, even to myself. I thought I would try to put what I can about it here, and maybe some of the readers here can help me clarify my thinking. The topic has come up here before in various posts, so this is not a new discussion. I will put the problem as simply as I can.

1. People need to survive.

2. In our world people need money to survive.

3. To get money, (most) people need to have jobs.

4. Most people would be happy not to have a job if they could survive without one (edit: This does not mean they don’t want to work — many people do their best work voluntarily).

5. Technology is developing to a point where jobs are disappearing (and many are not coming back), making it harder for people to survive.

6. Technology is developing (we’re not there yet) to a point where it will be possible to live on much less.

7. People need jobs to get the money to buy the technology that would allow them to live on less money. Without those jobs, in order for people to survive, someone (governments or other entities) will need to provide people with either money or technology.

8. Technology does not normally get developed for free.

I think I have got most of my key thoughts down — very sketchily. I’m presenting a situation here, not a solution. I’d be interested in hearing from the readers about what I might be missing. The issues mentioned here are being discussed in various places these days and I think the discussion will only increase over time in various arenas (politics, nonprofits, business, religion, etc.)

Thanks for any of your thoughts!

  • Technology has made many peoples time free to do other pursuits, but that technology does cost money – but is much cheaper than it used to be. When I listen to my neighbour downstairs in India hand washing clothes for 3-4 hours then smell as she cooks food for an hour from raw ingredients on a wood fire all as I try to sleep – I marvel at her connection with the jobs that form the basis of life.

    I then get up, throw my porridge in the microwave for a few minutes, during which time I put my dirty laundry in the washing machine. I am out of the house in 20 mins.

    With her skills, if she was employed and not a domestic technician, it would take her 10 months income to afford the washing machine and the microwave.

    • Something is also lost in this transition. Cooking skills, the joy of doing meaningful work, the social environment that arises from enjoying a home cooked family meal, the tradition, etc. Which is better? These are the very things that make us human.

      • Is washing meaningful? or food that satisfies oneself alone?

        I love cooking for others from raw materials, really rewarding, but just for myself, for breakfast, not really.

        Of couse the time I save allows me to do things I enjoy, like MFMP.

        • clovis

          hi, bob.
          myself being 62 i have lived as the Indian woman. and heck i never knew i was poor, we lived such rich lives, a lot of hard work, but also very satisfying, but i love the way things are now, life is much easier, safer, and healthier.and like you, i have time to do things only i like to do.

          • robyn wyrick

            Well, I wanted to get a last word (or nearly last) before closing up for the night.

            I’m a serious optimist about the automation crisis we’re facing.

            Over the past 150 years we’ve made almost every job that used to exist disappear, and the work we do now was impossible then. The next 150 years will be more of the same.

            And while this did cause problems in the past — and will cause problems in the future, the far more important crisis is the upending of the law of supply and demand (really, just the addition of a new corollary).

            In the tech economy, as demand grows without any known bounds and apparent limits, and supply strains to keep up, the cost of technology falls like a fire sale.

            This phenomenon is occurring primarily in computing, but the same pattern is going to occur in nearly every other field – because nearly every other field will be more and more driven by computing. The materials sciences and nano-tech manipulate atoms as data; biotech and genetic engineering manipulates genes and cells as data; Robotics manipulate movement as data; and AI manipulates data as, well, data.

            Additionally, the line between technology and what is typically called “nature” is fading. Over the past 150 years, corrective and enhancing prosthesis have grown increasingly intimate and invasive. False teeth became dental fillings, became implants. Eye glasses became contact lenses, became implants. Ear horns became hearing aids, became implants.

            So I think the next 150 years will see more of the same with incredible benefits. Some failures, but mostly benefits.

          • Fibb

            This whole area of debate is very timely. I am a proponent for a guaranteed annual income or reverse income tax. There will not be enough jobs to go around. Technology is going to destroy more jobs than it creates. We are in a bit of a pickle.

    • good point.
      read the next convergence. People don’t imagine how inefficient was the world before…
      And don’t talk of freedom, individuality…

  • John Di Turo

    In your scenario, you did not mention the tendency for the powerful to take advantage of the weak, and in this case hoard the money preventing others access to money, technology, or jobs. Unfortunately this leads to the demise of the society.

    • admin

      Thanks, John. Human nature is absolutely something to take into consideration in this situation.

  • Storerik

    Survival is about energy – Money is just the means to distribute this energy.
    Ever seen Wall-E? Do we want a world were we just sit around watching tv and getting fat while robots do all the work for us, powered by free energy?
    Will a market based on competition work with free energy?
    How much energy is required for a colonization of space?
    Can man survive in space or on other planets?
    Do we even need physical human beings to explore space?
    Do we even need to live if we have free energy and robots?
    Can you have democracy on a space ship?
    Is our planet a space ship (figuratively)?

    These are just a few questions to consider regarding free energy, and i think that we should NOT take our current economic system, or our leadership models even, for granted. Free energy will revolutionize more than just the energy sector.

  • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

    Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near encapsulates Admin’s thoughts in one large volume. The one mistake he makes is that he believes solar power will energise the future. I suppose a resource based economy would go some way towards addressing the problem of jobs disappearing, and people not being academically equipped to take up the remaining science and business oriented ones that remain.

  • In “Cures” words, the whole world has to be rebuilt. From future’s perspective, the present initial condition for a LENR world resembles a postwar situation: almost nothing functional, compared to what we could and can have.

    Yesterday’s estimate was that there is 0.08 percent probability that Mars will be destroyed on Oct 19 2014 by a 20 billion megaton comet impact (http://spaceobs.org/en/tag/c2013-a1-siding-spring/). Not big news in mainstream media, although it should be: 1/1000 chance that we will soon witness a once-per-billion years doomsday event on the neighbouring planet. In the LENR world we would already be busy at work trying and eliminating such existential risks. Finally the universe won’t ask us if we were happy. It will ask us if we survived.

    • Peter_Roe

      Everything you say is true, but the unfortunate fact is that there is almost zero will on the part of world governance to address such problems on behalf of those they rule (not ‘represent’ as it should be). The rich are too busy getting richer to worry about the survival of ‘the masses’ and in fact many would view a greatly reduced world population as beneficial (not for those who fail to survive, obviously).

      We actually need a revolution in the way we do things. Not necessarily a violent one, but if profound changes do not occur through evolutionary change in society, violence is probably inevitable.

      As admin says, people must have the tools for survival, and if these are denied, either many ‘ordinary’ people will die or the current rulership will have to adapt or be pushed aside. Society is separating more than ever before into the ‘haves’ with their great power and global agendas, and the ‘have nots’ who are effectively left to go under with no means of escape. As this polarisation continues, the two groups are becoming mutually incompatible at a rather frightening rate.

      • My “theory” (taking inspiration from plasma physics) is that social instability results if the income distribution has more than a single peak. For example, if the middle class disappears.

    • clovis

      +1

  • FlanOBrien

    Product/Service is merely the rearrangement of matter through energy.
    Unlimited energy implies unlimited materials, because unlimited energy can be employed to forage on Earth and beyond.The first two points mean that product/service availability will tend to unlimited with little economic value. Unlimited product/service implies that humanity will be allowed to “hang out” without fear of want, with each individual able to follow their true desires. Merit will be based on artistic, scientific and sociological contributions to society. Society will shun the mega organization (UN, EU, mega cities) and return to a situation found in the medieval epoch – hundreds of independent principalities.

    This scenario will probably be arrived at in the developing world quicker than the in developed world because the ability to self organize has not been entirely lost there yet.

    • Kim Patterson

      sounds like good medicine for the earth.

      Bankers and free energy do not mix,
      just like oil and water ect…

      Respect
      Kim

      • LilyLover

        They are delaying all this by trying to find “right emulsifier”.
        Coward compliance of people is one of them.

  • Barry

    The hopeful idea of Cold Fusion is that it would topple our current system of an oil based economy and political system. How could it not. Maybe I’m being naive but my next hope is it would lead to an economic revolution.
    Without the emergence of CF a lot of scenarios from environmentalist sound kind of grim. Maybe it’s the dreamer in me, but it just might happen and very few things have surfaced to give me this much hope in a long time. This is why I follow CF so fanatically. I’m waiting for the big break-through that will change the world for the better. Even if it changes the world on a smaller scale in our lifetimes, it’s bound to alter the future in a big way. I’m hoping it will pave a new way that leads to my children being able to afford a home, energy, and healthcare.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Barry: Very well said! You just explained to me why I am so interested in LENR, it does have the potential to change our economy, but I have a feeling it is not going to be an easy transition.

  • Veblin

    From Vortex
    http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg77494.html

    Wealth and Inequality in U.S.
    Jouni Valkonen Mon, 04 Mar 2013 04:41:26 -0800

    This is nicely done short video that illustrates quite well what people would
    like from the society. I would recommend to use two minutes on it, because it
    is interesting on sociological point of view.

    Viral Video Shows the Extent of U.S. Wealth Inequality
    http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

    —Jouni

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Thanks, good video, or rather a scary video.

    • AstralProjectee

      OMG that is messed up. I think we need a new system seriously. I don’t believe the rich deserve to earn that much wealth. I think our system of work hard get paid more only works to a degree, but after that it just becomes immoral, and impractical for the rest of us who are barely getting by.

      • George N

        A highly successful company these days is usually the result of government protection such as patents. Why not just expire patents early for highly successful companies? Than you don’t have to go through the trouble of designing a new “utopian” system!

  • Adrian Ashfield

    I have been trying to get my member of Congress to start considering how to deal with an increasing rate of permanently unemployed. He’s not interested.

    Unlike the previous technical innovations the new generation of full automation will mean fewer jobs. The general population won’t have the purchasing power they once did, even supposing they have jobs.

    This will lead to even greater inequality of wealth, that is already greater than most realize. In the end this leads to political unrest. See http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Adrian…I agree, you are describing big time deflation. The “average” person has been losing purchasing power for 30 years at an increasing rate. If LENR and other innovations are developed the problem will multiply. Our government either pretends not to know or does not want to know the problem exists, let alone doing something about it. Yet, the only way to solve the problem is by government action.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Govt screws up everything it touches. That’s what caused the current bust, when the politicians decided every citizen deserved to own a home.

        • AstralProjectee

          A simplistic thought to government.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Please….. I can name hundreds of programs the government has not “screwed up” and they have greatly benefited society .

          • clovis

            +1

  • Susan Corrigan

    Money is energy. Some smart people are looking at the world’s energy reserves piggy-bank and saying “oh my we’re running out of energy…we’re running out of money”. They are deciding that the world can no longer support this many people because there isn’t enough energy to go around…therefore they say “let’s make sure that WE have enough for US…and maybe the rest of the world will learn how to do without.” So the smart people go looking for enough supplies of carbon-based energy to make their lives happy, while systematically preparing to screw the masses out of whatever energy/money they could expect.

    LENR changes the rules of everything. Nobody has noticed yet though, and they won’t for some time.

    The end.

    • Kim Patterson

      I noticed.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    LENR and Deflation:
    Wikipedia definition of deflation: “In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services.” It is my understanding the US Federal Reserve is deathly afraid of Deflation, therefore the US Federal Reserve is in a sustained mode to “re-inflate” our economy. Enter, LENR, a low cost way to create electrical power, with the result of making all products and services cheaper by at least 10-20 percent. What would be the reaction of the Federal Reserve and the US government to this LENR news? What should their reaction be?

    • georgehants

      Bernie, comes into the same camp as why there is not a general push for a lower birth rate.
      If the population falls or stagnates then capitalism is unable to continue the growth necessary to keep making the rich richer.
      If one thinks, it is a little strange when we all know of the terrible population situation, that we are not being led gently by politicians media. etc. to be responsible in the number of children we have.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        georgehants: Population growth on non growth is a very small part of the problem.

        • In my opinion it’s almost the whole problem.

        • GreenWin

          One thing we do know is population in the form of live births decreases markedly as standards of living increase. Thus we see population contracting in the nations with highest standards of living (Japan, Scandinavia, most of EU.)

          Standards of living increase rapidly by allowing wage earners to keep more of their wage – e.g. by lowering monthly utility bills, the cost of transportation, goods and services, etc.

        • Omega Z

          Bernie

          Population concerns have a lot to do with having enough people to take care of the Aging population while maintaining the rest of society at the same time. Both Physically & Financially.

          Was a time when 10 people paid in S.S. & 1 Draws. Today it’s about 3 to 1 & Still Dropping. Note that Nursing home care is between $70k & $150K per patient year depending on the amount/type of care & Geography & increasing.

          This is unsustainable long term. Partly why I don’t see a problem with the Robotics revolution. It may have come just in time.

          DEFLATION:
          Deflation is more of a concern with Debt. Both National & personal. Understand that deflation has a strong tendency to stagnate & even reduce wage scales.

          Wages/Income can drop, but those debt payments stay the same & risk/likelihood of default increases.

          The Fed would prefer to keep inflation between 1% & 2%. 2 Reasons. 1)It negates part of the dept paying it in inflated dollars & 2) Zero is to close to negative. They want time to react. They don’t wont to pay debt with deflated dollars.

          I would note that we already have limited deflation effect due to productivity gains. Without it, the computers we’re using would cost, Well, most of us wouldn’t have 1.

          I see incorporating LENR being at least a 20 year process. Savings will be gradual. Deflation could be nullified by gradually increasing wages rather then reducing prices. Recommend due to the wide range of costs effected.

          This would be the SMART WAY. We all gain the buying power. Corporations gain additional sales/profit & the Government gains more Corporate/Private income tax & pay down debt with an inflated dollar power.

          Yep- That’s exactly what they Shou/WONT Do.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        The fly in the socialists’ soup….3D printed assault rifle.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tAW72Y_XPF4

        • Peter_Roe

          Unfortunately you can’t print the ammo.

      • Mark

        In the future, technology will be able to be developed for free.

    • I believe your statement “US Federal Reserve is deathly afraid of Deflation” is not entirely correct. The US Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel, it is not an agency of the US government.

      The US Government has abdicated sovereignty by means of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The US Federal Reserve is in complete control of the US Currency supply and the state of the US economy.

      I believe the greatest fear of the US Federal Reserve [FED] is that a large part of the US population might understand the role of the US Federal Reserve in the current economic hardship and indeed in the history of our nation. However, given that it has been a hundred years since the creation of the FED and the general populace remains ignorant; clearly it is not much of a concern.

      If you wish to learn and understand, you may find the following information sources useful:

      http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k

      http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-secret-of-oz/

      “No More National Debt”, by Bill Still

      • GreenWin

        The citizens (and non-citizens) of the United States delivered $3,188.1 (three thousand one hundred eighty eight) BILLIONS of dollars in Total Direct Revenue to the Federal Government last year. That’s $3.18 Trillion dollars income to be administered by “The Congress” i.e., 541 voting members of Congress, for the benefit of the American people.

        Can you see where this might be a potential nest for vipers?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Dwayne: I am sorry but you just are NOT accurate in your description of the US Federal Reserve System. Probably the article from Wikipedia below is the best source of the true function of the US Federal Reserve System. I am very happy it is an independent agency of the Federal Government, can you imagine it functioning within the mess we have in Washington politics!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

        http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

        http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080122220259AA0CW3Y

        • George N

          I like the concept of Bitcoin (I highly recommend googling it). Bit coins are now worth about $35 each and the supply will be fixed at 21 million bitcoins by the year 2140. The supply is predictable so you don’t need to worry about inflation and do not have to risk your retirement on wallstreet (that is the real reason the fed exists, to prevent deflation so that people are forced to risk their life savings on wallstreet to feed the fat cats)

  • georgehants

    Admin has made a few reasonably Factual observations particularly the proposition that —-
    4. “Most people would be happy not to have a job if they could survive without one (edit: This does not mean they don’t want to work — many people do their best work voluntarily).”
    If one takes that as True(as I do)then the position is shown that without money, everything becomes equal and fair.
    One starts with every person at say age 16 being entitled to a one bedroom flat and full basic needs and services.
    From there, each person can progress in line with their abilities and desires to earn more points (money) to gain a better house etc. etc.
    That situation lasts throughout life with one never having to pay bills etc.
    Society only has to organize and decide in all cases, such as Cold Fusion where employment is best allocated.
    Because of the mass of unemployed given by today’s technology and the many millions working with money. finance etc. etc. then one works out the effort needed for all by the hours worked in a week and retirement age.
    This would not stop people working more time or into retirement etc. if they enjoy their work, and gain more points.
    Nobody receives any inherited wealth or property, only the best students go the best university’s etc. etc.
    No Waste, everybody is equal, no super rich, no wasted politics, etc. etc.
    Many small problems to be overcome but what fun for everybody deciding who should gain lots of points and have a big house and car etc. etc.
    Nobody needs to worry about finance, bills etc. etc as long as the large majority of people are willing to do their share.
    I will take the chance of saying, in a fair World, people would be surprisingly unselfish.

    • John Howard

      All men are created equal – that equality ends within 30 seconds
      God said –
      ” The poor you will have with you always”
      Man thinks he can eliminate poverty
      ” Thou shalt not covert thy neighbors goods”
      Everyone envies other people’s success
      ” Thou shalt not steal”
      But it’s ok if the government steals
      and give it to people for 99 weeks!!!
      ” If a man will not work – do not let him eat
      and he will work soon enough”
      Free money = NO Initiative to work!!!

      • GreenWin

        ” Thou shalt not covert thy neighbors goods” THAT is funny!

      • George N

        The closest that we can come to true equality is for the government to treat everyone equally under the law. If the government tries to redistribute wealth in order to make everyone materially equal, then u automatically are giving great power to an elite political class who will over time attract the most power hungry people who will do whatever it takes to remain in power by pitting classes/races/sexes/orientations against each other. But these power hungary individuals usually like making money as well, so they want to limit competition from potential competitors by passing laws that are very complicated that only the established companies can afford the lawyers to navigate through, and they favor raising taxes on one in 50 people because it will make it harder for small business startups to succeed, so even though the established & politically connected 1 in 10,000 are paying higher taxes, they actually make more money because there is less competition — and they appeal to the lower classes because superficially it looks like the gov is sticking it to the rich, but in reality the socialist policies keep the rich rich — it’s the oldest political trick in the book and there are still too many useful idiots to correct it.

    • George. What you are describing is almost what we had in Finland and Scandinavian countries in the 1980’s. Generally people liked it more than they disliked, I think. It’s called social democracy. Many legislative and other structures created at that time are still in place, although the system is rather much challenged nowadays by multinational big money brought about by the liberation of the finance markets which happened about 25 years ago.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, in the system there are no unemployed, just everybody works less hours, years.
        Things like in the U.K. there is no shortage of Doctors, Nurses etc. etc. as cost is not an issue just the necessary workforce trained.
        Society decides what they consider is important to work for, not politicians etc. etc.
        Many things could become standardized in working, but different exteriors for choice. thus reducing maintenance hours etc. etc.
        For our raw materials, that with full recycling would be much reduced, then our young volunteer to work abroad mining or growing banana’s for a couple of years or so.
        We could fit Solar Cells to every roof at almost no cost in the workforce, as everybody unemployed is already receiving basic benefits, reducing our energy imports, reducing pollution, etc.
        If one can see merit in the basic system above then the ideas for improvement in the system are never ending.

        • AstralProjectee

          I think this might be a good idea georgehants. I, like you, want and need to see some real change here to accommodate the loss of money from jobs with the new influx of robotics. There really is no way around this. We will loose a lot of jobs in the future and the rich will keep getting rich, while the poor keep getting poor, if we don’t change our system. I think capitalism has about run it’s course and is really to transition to a new system of some kind of redistribution of wealth. Otherwise half of the population could end up starving to death in the future if something is not done.

          • georgehants

            Astral, just add that as worry about money and mortgages, losing one’s job etc. lead to untold amounts of mental and bodily ill health, the above system should lead to a very welcome general improvement in the happiness and therefore health of society.

          • Omega Z

            George

            Money isn’t the real problem. It’ just a tool that fills in for the old barter system. It actually makes things work better. You don’t have to lug things around for hours or days to get/trade for what you want. It’s just a place holder. Convenient. Getting rid of it won’t change anything. At least not for the better.

            Problem is, Like me you live in a developed society. You see all the things lining the shelves & see a World of Plenty. The Only thing in the way is money.

            It’s an Illusion. Remove the money & everyone can get what they want/need & you will realize the truth in short order. We Actually live in a world full of shortages. And if it’s for the taking, the waste would exasperate those shortages.

            Money for the most part is just an equilibrium between labor input & product output. Even allowing for societal manipulations it’s still pretty close.

            It’s also a form of rationing. Keeping those shelves filled & retaining the illusion of plenty. Without it, the shelves go bare & reality will slap us hard upside the head.

            So the other problem of being to productive isn’t a problem. The Real problem is that to many aren’t productive enough & that’s not necessarily their fault. Many just don’t have the means. Tools, Resources & such.

            A bigger problem is the People who have both the Power & Money to try to fix this don’t know how or aren’t smart enough. Probably both.

            Until we get to a point where there really is plenty to go around, things can never be really equitable.

            Cheap Energy like LENR- Thou it wont fix everything, Could take us a long way down that road.

          • George N

            Can you agree that cheaper robots make it easier to start a business?
            Can you agree that more smaller businesses naturally redistribute profit margins while lowering costs and increasing value to the end user?
            Can you agree that as consumer products get cheaper, there is less of a need to work?
            Can you agree that the more smaller businesses there are, the greater the opportunity for new workers to find jobs that better fit their personalities?
            If yes, why not think about how we can make it easier for small businesses to succeed?

          • GreenWin

            All good points George. Low cost energy means the cost of overhead for small business declines significantly. Enabling the survival of small business puts more people to work in niche areas they may actually enjoy.

  • Dwayne

    Energy, Technology, and Money are very different things/ideas and should be considered separately.

    Energy — Biologic populations expand (or contract) exponentially to consume all available energy supplies. Humanity is a biologic population.

    Technology — Technology is developed by intelligent/creative people. This most often occurs when the basic needs of these people have been met and there is a surplus. The people have some time/resources to spare beyond mere survival and begin to consider creating tools to make life easier.

    Money —

    1) Money is not a resource. Money is a tool (tech) to enable trade. Money has been found to be more effective than barter.

    2) People prosper by trading their labor (services) or the result of their labor (goods). The wealth of a nation is the labor of the people. Money is not wealth, it is a tool to enable trade. The CAPACITY of a people to create wealth does not change because they have (or do not have) money.

    • GreenWin

      Dwayne, you are wrong with regard to “Biologic populations expand (or contract) exponentially to consume all available energy supplies.”

      To the contrary, population contracts as commercial energy supply expands. This is due to the transition from agrarian to urban, IT-based society. As standards of living rise (following cost) population contracts in the form of live births.

      This is one reason why overseers have elected to enfranchise China. As wealth grows a middle class, birth rates have declined. Some demographers predict China’s population will decrease to as little as 400M by century end.

      • I was referring to the global population. The empirical data supports my statement. Please review the following charts:

        http://www.paulchefurka.ca/World%20Population%20and%20Oil.JPG

        http://cosmicconvergence.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/World-Population-and-Oil-1900.jpg

        • Omega Z

          There is a much stronger correlation with medical advances. Starting around 1800.

          Each Child that survives adds a major exponential factor.
          Another thing I’ve recently been made aware of is that in poor Countries, The Number of children 1 has is considered a measure of 1’s wealth.(They have nothing else) Combined with lower mortality rates due to medical advances & you see the results.

          In a Middle class society, A couple offspring to carry on a family name is enough. Anymore than that becomes an encumbrance to a Middle class lifestyle. One’s self interests tend to take over.

          This middle class effect is even motivating China to ease up on their 1 Child per family mandate.

          Every Country that develops a stable middle class has seen a reduction in birth rate. Many are reaching a Negative rate but it takes a while for the actual plateau then a drop. Japan recorded it’s 1st Population drop in 2010 & expects the population to be halved by 2050. Russia is trying to stop theirs from dropping for fear of becoming Internationally insignificant in the Future.

          The U.S. would be at or about to plateau now if not for immigration & ready to decline. The U.S is ranked 3rd in population. China/India/U.S.A.

        • GreenWin

          “…the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.”

          http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

          • data known since many decades …
            the demographic transition is just getting faster than planned. Population bombe is a myth.
            too sad you have to repeat that GreenWin 😉 .

            So many urban myth make the headlines todays.

  • The wealth of a nation is controlled by two things: (1) How effective the labor of the people. Education, energy availability, technology are factors which improve effectiveness. (2) Ample supply of currency to enable trade.

    It is the second item, the currency supply, that is the issue. The currency supply in most of the nations of the earth is being controlled by central banks. Because these banks are manipulating (shrinking) the currency supply, the people suffer. At present, there is insufficient currency in circulation to enable trade.

    This knowledge has been well documented by various authors. My personal favorite is Bill Still. See documentary video link below.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-secret-of-oz/

  • GreenWin

    These are all interesting theoretical problems/discussion that, IMO are inordinately premature. It is like a jogger trying to run before confronting festering wounds that make it impossible. The corpus we occupy is sick. Badly so. Discussion of utopian governments providing housing, income, food and bum wiping are out of place unless and until the disease is reckoned with… And treated.

    One cannot walk or run with massive infection compromising bone and tissue. That infection is corruption at the highest levels of government. As I noted in the previous e-catworld story (Dennis Cravens…) – we have growing evidence that powerful figures in the military/industrial/political complex have for (at least) a half century, worked to usurp the democratic/parliamentary process. Dr. Hal L. Fox’s testimony to the US Patent Office Special Agent is one minor piece of evidence. There is a lot more evidence indicting a large body of business and government agencies from agriculture, energy, medicine, media.

    This disease must be faced and treated. The treatment is not to run off and build a utopian ideal (though some may try.) It behooves us to introduce commercial low cost energy and let it help ferret out the cancer. Since LENR is clearly anathema to golden calf-institutions (industrial, academia, M/I complex, entrenched politics) they will scream the loudest. Their acolytes appear here and on other CF sites, snarling and whimpering about “skams, fraud, and bad science.” They paint their own hands red.

    There are rats in the belfry who have sold out the free market concept for material and knowledge monopolies. They are IMO, corrupt, treasonous rats that must be dispensed with before rebuilding a society. There are many who know this, and support the difficult process of diagnosis and treatment. Without that, we are a crippled body dreaming to run without facing the reasons we cannot.

    • Peter_Roe

      I am happy with that diagnosis, but am at a complete loss when it comes to prescribing any suitable anti-parasite treatment that won’t kill the host as well. Spreading awareness seems to be the only tool to hand, but ‘democratic’ processes are more or less ineffectual. With money, energy, food and increasingly, water under the control of the parasites, and worldwide civilian disarmament well under way while ‘security’ forces arm themselves to the teeth, the options for the mass of humanity are becoming quite limited.

  • georgehants

    I would just like to record my disgust at these Wonderful people who can teach us so much being described as Idiots.
    ———
    From Discover Magazine
    Idiot Savants and Prime Numbers
    By George Johnson | March 4,
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/?p=126&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverMindBrain+%28Discover+Mind+%26+Brain%29#.UTTqqzdNG_8

  • Claes

    Those are all good points. But indeed we ARE already at the point where everybody could work much less, it’s just that there are no economic forces that drives any surplus to those without jobs. They drive money basically to the banks. If we produce 100 times more money (which we do now compared with not too long back historically) the banks and other institutions and people at the top will get 100 times more.

    There needs to be redistribution if that is to become true, and since everybody yells “socialism!” if redistribution is broached, that won’t happen in the US in any case.

    • Omega Z

      Doesn’t work that way.
      There is an equilibrium between money & product.

      But for arguments sake, Lets say you could put just 20% more money in the pockets of the people without increasing prices.
      Result would be Shelves of goods going bare & people still having money in their pocket. Basically worthless.

      In the Developed countries, we live in a world of Illusion of plenty. It’s only maintained by the equilibrium. This is why Governments take money from you in taxes to give to those on welfare. Just printing money doesn’t work.

      Note that in Russia when certain Industries went on strike, they basically printed money & paid them more then what product was produced. So even thou they had more money. There was little to buy with it.

      When The wall came down & Russia exchanged the new currency for old, They found there was 2 to 3 times more money throughout their society then product to be had. All tucked away in Mattresses or Cans.

      Sadly, No one has ever figured out a way to quick start/Jump start an Economy in an effective manor. Only the Direct transfer of 1 to another.

      Most U.S. Citizens don’t realize that our Government is Redistributing our wealth. In the Way they Tax Corporations & the Rich to encourage or force them to relocate & Leave their wealth in other countries.

      So when your job gets transferred to another Country, This is what is truly going on. This is why we have a Tax system in the U.S that requires a small army of tax experts to figure it out. Even then their confused.

      In all Honesty, This effects more then the U.S. It affects most of our European friends & Japan as well. It’s a World Orchestrated transfer of wealth from the haves to the have not. The U.S. has the most, so gets hit the hardest.

      This began after WWII. The U.S. had 75% of the worlds wealth. Today it has just under 25% of the Worlds wealth, But 5% of the Worlds Population. You can see where this is going. We still have to much in their eyes.

      You & others may not agree with what I’ve posted about Governments Tax manipulations for wealth transfer, but her’s something to consider.

      We’re moving the Factory to China because of High wages here. We’ve all heard it.

      Wages in China are now Pushing a whopping $2 an hour. It’s suddenly economical to bring those jobs back to the States & pay $15 plus benefits an hour. The Point. Wages are just a catch phrase for Corporations. Otherwise $2 beats $15 plus benefits hands down. Government Manipulation at work.

      I’m only aware of this because I’ve been privy to the right people in the right places over the years. And your Corporations will Never disclose this publicly. There would be Consequences extracted from them by the Government. The Common people aren’t meant to know.

      While it’s true that Some big Corporations bribe Politicians for Favors, Many more are actually paying protection money. Which is why they donate large sums to both Parties. Thou I guess that too could be considered a bribe of sorts. Don’t hurt me Bro-

      A Couple a Final Notes: The Reason the U.S. & a dozen other countries are Now Printing money? That’s because most of the Worlds Money is already spent or earmarked for existing Debt. The World for the Most Part is Broke.

      I’m aware of 2 Corporate Buy Outs going private in the last 6 months or so went like this. The Small shareholders received Cash. The Large Shareholders received as much as 60% of their compensation in Promissory Notes???
      Involves some of the Worlds Richest & Deepest pockets… Their Overextended.

      And a Final Note. The World Financial System has Finagled a way for the Rich Bond/Financiers of troubled Countries to loan the same funds multiple times. Like the same Billion being loaned to Greece, Italy, Spain, Etc… as many as 5 times. When the 1st defaults, the money is gone. There is no longer any financial backing for the rest of the Loans. You are in effect default yourself. A Domino effect. The Perfect Storm.
      The next Bubble. Which is why I really hope LENR Products make it to market soon. We’ll need the cheap energy for rebuilding the World Economy.

  • Jaim

    Man plans, God laughs…

    • GreenWin

      Wait… the two are separate?

  • georgehants

    Scientific American
    Meet the New Secretary of Energy Nominee: Ernie Moniz
    Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who serves on Scientific American’s board of advisors, will be President Barack Obama’s pick to replace Nobel laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. While Moniz has yet to win a Nobel, he served on the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future from 2010 to 2012 and has a long track record in government service, including a stint in the Department of Energy under President Bill Clinton.
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/04/meet-the-new-secretary-of-energy-nominee-ernie-moniz/

    • Gerrit

      We can completely forget about LENR funding then. A nuclear physicist from MIT. The hot fusion folks are celebrating.

      • GreenWin

        The hot fusionistas have celebrated for a long while as MIT heavily influences Administration policy and Moniz has been a Deputy Secretary DOE for a while. One of his past papers is titled “Nuclear Power One of Several Green Weapons Against Global Warming” indicating a severe lack of insight into climate influences. But hey, people change if they are willing to have an open mind.

        • Peter_Roe

          He is presumably in place to look after the interests of the nuclear and hot fusion research industries, and I’m sure will carry out his role dutifully. However, if part of the ‘plan’ is to ring-fence hot-cat CF technology so that it can serve as a substitute for hot fusion in the research field (read ‘milch cow’) then CF will at least be used to serve someones purposes.

          You never know – in 20 (or is that 40) years time we might see electricity that is ‘too cheap to meter’, so we’ll all be able to stop burning twigs and dried animal dung to keep warm in our hovels.

    • Barry

      Hi George, This is the guy who threw Cold water on the Cold Fusion projects at MIT.

      • clovis

        how can mit have a lenr device that has been running for 6-8 months and not say anything about it, i will be surprised,if mit can suppress this again, the cat is oput of the bag so to speak, where will it all end.

        • Barry

          MIT has only one advocate for Cold Fusion and that’s Peter Hagelstein.

          • Omega Z

            MIT doesn’t sponsor LENR/CF
            Neither does UNIBO.
            It’s Plausible Deniability.

            However they both have employees who do.

          • Peterem

            Mr. Acland,

            I think you are asking the right questions and I think the answer is cooperatives and mutual insurance. Consumer purchases drive economies, but consumers and the public and the environment don’t seem to be sharing the increases in productivity. A few are benefiting extravagantly from the purchases of many.

            Cooperatives can slowly take market share from huge corporations until we have businesses that actually work in the best interests of consumers and society rather than the selfish interests of a few shareholders. Eventually, we’ll share resources without disenfranchising whole segments of our society, a world without artificially imposed scarcity. The Venus project makes a lot of sense. http://www.thevenusproject.com/

            We just need a way to get from here to there.

            Do you think Ernest Moniz, the newly nominated Energy Secretary, will be good for lenr? He is from MIT.

          • The idea the money get to the richest only is typical for situation where the growth is weak.
            It is well explained in “the next convergence”
            When there is huge growth like in europe after the war, in Korea in the 90s, the inequalities increase, but the poverty is reduced, and the inequalities are not reproduction of the past but result of random or merit. rich people get a little riche, and poor people can get massively richer, even more than the old rich…

            With some redistribution, which will be easy because everybody is happy, even the richest, it can allow to reduce inequalities afterward.

  • nightcreature3

    What sticks out at me, about employment, is that although all firms are quick to point out the needs for cuts during a recession, they are not prepared to dish out unusually large salaries when the going is good. What you get in your paycheck is essentially a basic means for sustenance, with little variation between different job types and different employers. Perheaps in the future, all employees should, right from the start, be legally entitled to some shares in the company for which they work, even if it’s not being traded on the stock exchange. ( The usual practice is for the original stakeholders to hang on to their shares, and only start selling them when things start turning sour )

    Another anomaly, is that despite rising unemployment, nobody ever discusses a shorter working week. In Europe we lag behind, having to work 40hrs instead of 35hrs as the Americans do. Unemployment can only get worse now that automation is moving into the I.T. area. It is only fair to share the remaining work among a larger number of people. Some people fear a reduction in their salary, but given the “sustenance only” metric, this need not be the case. I for one, would not mind a reduced salary if it meant shorter working hours or simply a reduction in the workload.

    Free energy can be the catalyst for change. But people would have to move fast to stop other resources from being cornered. Already, there are worrying signs, that the freeing of the common man from the drudgery of work, does not rank high on Mr. Rossi’s agenda. I hate to think of all the vital opportunites that have been missed, during the two years in which he has been dancing his “Danza dei sette veli”.

    • Peter_Roe

      The technology that could have made all the difference (hot cat) has already been fully captured by the corporate world, and will therefore be introduced in a manner designed to avoid upsetting any applecarts. Cheaper energy will increase the profits of corporations, but is unlikely to make any real difference to current trends towards evisceration of the middle class and ever-increasing wage slavery.

      Regarding the working hours disparity, IMO if there is any ‘levelling’ it is much more probable that US working hours will rise than it is that European hours will fall.

      • Gerrit

        Who has the current schedule for the

        1 – completion of the independent reviewers testing the ecat
        2 – 1MW ecat plant delivery to the customer

        March, April ?

        • Year ?

        • Torbjörn

          1 Third week in March. (This year)
          2 There ar atleast two deliveries in March; one 1MW Hot-Cat plant, and one “normal” 1MW plant. They are also manufacturing a 1MW Gas-Cat plant. (This year)

          • yamal

            whatever the date will be – it doesn’t matter as long as nobody sees them or reports about them.

          • _Frank_

            And what’s the status for this ones:
             
            Andrea Rossi
            November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM
            Dear Herb Gills:
            Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public.
            We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            Andrea Rossi
            May 13th, 2012 at 8:03 AM
            Dear Pietro F.:
            I have been authorized to give the following information.
            The 1 MW plant has been delivered and is working in a military concern. It has been made in the USA, after the October test of the prototype made in Italy; such prototype will be delivered, with the modifications which we will complete based on what we learnt from the model at work, to a European Customer in July. I have not been allowed to give this information until now.
            We are working very much and very hard to be as fast as possible. For the domestic E-Cats we have the necessity of the certification made. The industrial plants will get the necessary certification within weeks.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            And any information from that early customers?
             
            October 20th, 2010 at 7:08 PM
            […] As for the testing of our technology, it is made day by day by our Customers.
            Our Company has made contracts with Customers who bought our reactors and the contract we have with our Customers binds us to the confidentiality about what we made for and with them.
            […]
            I hope, since the work so far is going well, that before the end of the year we’ll be allowed to make a public presentation. …

          • Gerrit

            Thanks _Frank_ but those are old schedules and not valid anymore. LOL

          • Gerrit

            yes, I also fear that we’ll spend the rest of the year discussing the publication date of the report and the reason why it hasn’t been published yet.

            But if it is all a scam, when will Rossi run with the money ?

            What do you think yamal ?

          • yamal

            seems to be a tricky subject in terms of getting moderated. here’s my answer in a nutshell. i don’t think he will ever run. there is no reason. he can carry on like this forever.

          • Torbjörn

            There were no public demos in 2010, the Hot-Cat was invented in mid 2012. The first public demo was in Januari 2011.

          • yamal

            yes, i know. the point was that the demos distracted everybody from following up (in 2011) on customers he said he had as early as 10/2010. of course nobody talked about previous promises when there were fresh youtube videos to consume. and the talk about the hot-cat distracted from the e-cat deliveries supposed to start world wide in 2012 as did the industrial e-cat with the domestic one half a year before that. so far there has always been something new and more exciting just when it was about time to deliver on whatever was the exciting thing before that.

          • Jim

            Reading some of these comments, I have to wonder at people.

            What happens when a factory is automated? Costs drop. Costs drop a lot. Not to free, because power, materials, and the sales chain still cost money. But costs drop.

            After a while, when the automation is paid for, the prices will drop. Not to free, otherwise there would be no point in running the factory and still paying salespeople to sell.

            As costs drop to make things, and 3d printing starts becoming prevalent, factories and businesses may get smaller. It will cost considerably less to open a new business when you can employee robots to do the labor.

            I see a lot more products available but lots more individuals.

            I don’t know that we’ll ever get to the point of eliminating money, but I don’t know that we really want to. To even cut down on the work week, we need to eliminate a number of laws that prevent it, such as the ones requirement employers to offer insurance. It’s not worth paying insurance on 800 employees at 20 hours a week each if you can pay insurance on 400 at 40 a week. Or even 300 at 60 a week even paying overtime.

            Get rid of the stupid law, and watch the work week shrink for those people who want fewer hours.

            Of course, then there will be an argument that no one can afford insurance. However, it will become like car insurance, and the employee will be the customers instead of the employer.

          • Anthony

            I apologize if my ecological-cybernetic mindset is a bit off-kilter; I welcome all critique/questions/comments, and I’m not interested in convincing or evangelism.
            I do see the logistical benefit of automation: the leverage provided to the whole economy by lower prices for basic goods, employment and development in technological fields with diverse niche applications outside their intended market, even the potential of automation to provision previously scarce luxuries to further incentivize the market.
            Consider, also, the nature of homeostasis and diversity. When a form becomes more effective within its environment, it presses upon the boundary of its environment. Expansion continues until it reaches environments with poor fit. Rapid expansion leads to similarity across a broad spectrum; parasites and disease sweep through. Surviving pockets have, by happenstance, diversity that may create new species. In the Amazon, cordyceps fungi each target a species of insect with ‘zombie-head-explody’ spores, knocking out any species that threatens diversity with overabundance. Back to context: automation is a powerful leverage point, like fossil fuel, and its success will tend to generate disruption along the boundary, a raft of parasites in its wake, and fragmented re-purposing. I’m not sure we’ve escaped natural cycles of ecology; the cycles are an outgrowth of the system’s structure (cybernetics), and each particular technology makes wrinkles, but doesn’t change the nature of the process.

            When do new leverage points NOT create boundary disruption and parasitic arbitrage? Some disruption is inevitable, but honey bees are a good model of positive bias – symbiots, niche species providing positive externalities, organisms with parallel interests/concerns, or complementary specializations/constraints,… when we work together, we avoid the parasitic cascade. When institutions ease and support these forms of cooperation, we avoid the disruption from waves of layoffs and re-training; a classicist libertarian stance ignores our role in the environment and the potential of mutualism to play counterpoise to the threat of Malthus.

            The recognition of structure’s impact on tendency and possibility is key, in the ecological mindset. If automation is in the hands of the masses (OS DIY Cad & 3-d printers) but can only enter niches that compete with distant micro-producers, then localism becomes isolationism. This increases visible diversity – like an island chain, each island has its own fern, its own beetle. Mainlands support fewer special ‘leaves’, providing whole new niches, instead. (one fern, one beetle, AND ELEPHANTS!) Localization and automation seem to be opposing pressures, conflicting motives – I see the issue of energy density. Arctic environments require competition and consumption: caribou eat any grass they find, wolves eat any caribou they find. Replacement and transport costs are high, success is marginal, forms are constrained by the environment, minimal diversity. The Amazon, in contrast, has sloths who live in the same tree their whole lives, never killing their food source. When energy is dense, you don’t have to travel far, you don’t have to be vicious or greedy, you can take many forms, and some will produce positive externalities for others. Eventually, you may make a living by providing positive externalities, instead of hunting and killing for food. This form of specialization is the real engine of growth, and we support it with energy density. If a dense, clean, accessible city were provisioned with honest, diligent, creative folk, and the means to design and rapidly implement their creations, automation would do us naught but good. 🙂 Utopia, eh?

          • Peter_Roe

            Thanks for this very interesting post Anthony. Humanity seems to be heading toward feudal monoculture as diversity shrinks because of mass culture and active suppression of dissidence.

            This has already led to the stunting of innovation and made us increasingly vulnerable to financial parasitism and destruction through directed warfare. Further centralisation and ‘standardisation’ of the means of production, particularly of food, could easily lead to physical disaster on a vast scale, when and if problems are discovered and it is too late to return to diversity.

          • GreenWin

            Anthony argues for automation as a support to diversity; I tend to agree. I also enjoyed his Amazon parasite analogy: “…cordyceps fungi each target a species of insect with ‘zombie-head-explody’ spores, knocking out any species that threatens diversity with overabundance.” Although most of the 400 species hail from Asia, not the Amazon.

            I note that codyceps also targets its own. There is no such thing as “overabundance” as abundance is benevolent, indicative of the infinite universe on which to draw from.

          • GreenWin

            “Eventually, you may make a living by providing positive externalities, instead of hunting and killing for food.”

            There currently is no remuneration for positive externalities such as volunteering. This is a very strange conundrum. Volunteerism is wildly promoted as cooperative, communal, charitable “giving back.” Yet, even when, in this USA, volunteer, donated services, apprenticeship, intern hours are recorded – there is little in the way of recognition or compensation. Why institutionally record the hours if they are meaningless?

            There are 90,000,000 single family homes in the USA. If each of these were to have a new “water heater/CHP system installed – someone would need to build, deliver, install, maintain all those units. Jobs.

          • lcd

            Still a very valid point. No matter how convincing or optimistic Rossi sounds he has a record of failing to meet expectations. I still remember the “scientific article” he sort of bragged about putting out a story on him…ended up being popular mechanics and not very flattering.

            Im just as hopeful as the next guy and i have higher hopes on DGT, but the emminent Third party report might be his mom test cooking with the hotcat.

  • Jim

    “Player Piano” Kurt Vonnegut, 1953, mentioned here recently.

    Also, it seems that the dynamics of “how things actually happen” versus “what we would like to happen” are governed not by energy, but power,and not physical power, but political, economic, military, religious, social cultural and interpersonal power, which have much more to do with psychology than physics or engineering.

    Specifically, the current world system seems to bound by:
    > Politicians doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of exercising political power
    > Wealthy people doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of exercising economic power
    > Military leaders doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of exercising military power
    > Police, prosecutors, judges and prison staff doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of exercising legal power
    > Religious leaders doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of exercising religious power
    > Social and cultural leaders doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of exercising social and cultural power
    > Everyday people doing whatever it takes to be able to continue to enjoy the experience of perceived higher social status and the exercise interpersonal power.

    I appreciate that there is a great deal of kindness, good will, compassion and altruism in the world. However, we have the means RIGHT NOW to feed, clothe and house everyone on the planet at a level that spares them the daily fears of destitution, but we don’t do it, because, balanced against all the good impulses is the will to, lust after, and relishing of power.

    What’s most disturbing is that discussion of these forms of power, and people’s psychological addictions to these forms of power, is essentially a cultural taboo. No one wants talk about it, in any forum, anywhere. And yet it is so obviously close to the root cause of every ill on the planet.

    And the reason no one wants to discuss it? I believe it is because to discuss power is to admit to abusing it, admit to being abused by it, and to weaken one’s own power by exposing its methods. No one wants to go first.

    History is a long story about power gradually being dissipated and distributed, and technology *may* help accelerate that trend.

    But what is the narrative that describes the evolution of the outright feudalistic cultures that dominate 1/3 (or more) of the world today, not to mention the pseudo-feudalism of insecure employment even in developed countries, into something more like the ideal modern liberal democracies, when those cultures are soaked in the hundreds of years of conditioning around the psychology of status, dominance and power?

    • Peter_Roe

      +1 (at least!). The question now is how far will the formerly ‘privileged’ populations of the US and Europe be allowed to slide back to feudalism in the 21st century, before the status quo de-stabilises completely.

  • Damien

    There is a model for a utopian society where everything is abundant and easily created.
    Work is done by machines, which are either self repairing or repair each other. With all jobs taken care of, and nobody left wanting for anything, the need to work becomes redundant. People only work for enjoyment. (Such as crafting a piece of artwork. )
    A radical governmental shift needs to take place for this to become reality, where governments start working towards this goal of providing as much for the people for as cheap as possible.
    The first people to lose their jobs, would then be supported, if they chose not to find other work. Such an expense would only last for that generation and after that the product becomes as cheap as maintain the equiptment, until even the workforce maintaining the equiptment become automated. Eventually people will start working less and less as more and more things become available for free.

    It starts with a governmental system called geniocracy, where only the top percentage of the population is able to be elected, and only the top 20 are eligible to vote. Who better to make decisions to affect our future than those with the highest mental faculties? ( for the record I’m barely above average)

    I try to keep religion out of scientific forums but this all comes from a religion based on science.
    I hate it when others try to push their religious beliefs on others, but if anyone wants to know more, or maybe you think as I initially did that it might be good for a laugh, try http://www.rael.org

  • georgehants

    Spanish solar energy: A model for the future? March 4, 2013
    There is no free fuel. Whether you drill for and refine oil, or manufacture and maintain a panel to collect solar energy and convert it into electricity, it takes energy to make energy. In Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment, authors Pedro A. Prieto of the Asociación para el Estudio de los Recursos Energéticos, and Charles A.S. Hall of the State University of New York, examine whether solar power can produce enough surplus energy to meet society’s energy requirements in a sustainable manner.
    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-spanish-solar-energy-future.html#jCp

    • ChrisHansen

      No. Solar is costing us the spaniards about 6.000 million euro a year. An amount we simply cannot pay, but our last government thought it would be fine anyways. So now we have a cumulative debt of more than 24.000 million euro because of (mainly) solar. It’s driving us directly into bankrupcy.

      • GreenWin

        Same in UK and Germany. EU is fragile due to unrealistic predictions of solar base load contribution.

      • Peter_Roe

        As GW says, here in the UK there are large govt subsidies (feed back tariffs) to promote private investment in solar, but this has been arranged so that it is electricity consumers who foot the bill. Likewise wind turbines, on and off-shore, but in this case it is private businesses that are being propped up by premiums paid on the power they produce, again footed by the oiks. Despite all this, ‘renewables’ still contribute under 10% to UK power requirements, and ‘green investments’ have in general turned out to be a money pit.

        The main thrust of recent policy has been to shut down coal fired power stations before the end of their design life (on the pretext of various ridiculous ‘green’ objectives that the recently-disgraced energy minister of the time signed up to) and to kill off the one renewable technology that could have competed with nuclear in the UK – tidal power.

        Unfortunately the sheer cost of the new nuclear build that all this was designed to clear the way for, is now so high that even that looks to be in doubt, unless Camoron can slip his scheme to fleece consumers for the next two or three generations in order to pay for it, past parliament.

        • Peter_Roe

          Correction to comment currently in moderation: ‘feed-in tariffs’ not ‘feed back tariffs’.

        • Curbina

          There is another vote ongoing for Dr. Miley’s LENR distributed power, let’s put him in the top 3 once again!!!

          http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

          Just 10 hours to go!!!

          My vote was # 50

          • GreenWin

            Curbina – I think you meant “Just 10 DAYS to go!!!” Now, 9 days and X hours.

  • Linda

    You are describing Gene Rodenberry’s “Star Trek Universe”.

  • 1 – Re educate everyone on the planet, on the human values ​​of the whole human being in harmony with nature.
    2 – Change the world financial system where banks profits are public but his administration is private (outsourcing).
    3 – Start a propaganda campaign that encourages human values ​​of point 1, eliminating any advertising of the negative values ​​(superficial, quick profit, laziness, drugs, sex, individual selfishness)
    4 – Send a minimum income to every one.
    5 – Let the benefits of new technologies are distributed to the entire world population.
    6 – Remove the consumerism just consumption necessary, eliminate obsolescence programmed, by extension, repair and improvement of existing products.
    6 – Insist continually advertising campaign positive values ​​(family, respect, honor, punctuality, humility, honesty, solidarity, etc.) to avoid falling into the negative values​​.
    7 – Expand tourism businesses.
    8 – Measuring the development of a country, with three metric that must be in balance: A- economic values​, B-nature values, C- social, human values.
    9 – Be happy enjoy the life.

  • joe

    Cheap energy such as the E-cat will provide, means the price of everything will come down, which means more demand for all products, which means more jobs. With more jobs come more people with more money to spend. Also cheap energy will allow farmers to produce more food. People with cheap abundant food and more money in their pockets = population explosion. More people on the planet mean a rapped increase in demand for natural resources.

    • rolando

      Most advanced countries have low birth rate!

  • GreenWin

    While waiting on the public introduction of the first commercial LENR plant it is fascinating to review a few early quotes from the community of LENR scientists:

    “Experimental evidence has now verified that nuclear reactions can be caused to occur in heavily loaded solids [i.e., palladium]. It is premature to predict where this is headed from an applications point of view, but the basic science is clearly revolutionary.”
    Dr. George H. Miley, Director of the Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana

    “It appears that the people who would benefit most by this work being discredited have taken the initiative to cause us great difficulty … They might cause us difficulty, but they will not stop the science.”
    Dr. Stanley Pons, co-discoverer of cold fusion, former Chairman Department of Chemistry, University of Utah

    “If Professor X.Z. Li [of Tsinghua University, China] is correct, then I’ll have to throw away about 14 of the 16 chapters in my book Introduction to Fusion Energy, because it will no longer be relevant to the kinds of fusion that could result from this ‘cold fusion’ process.”
    Dr. J. Reece Roth, Industrial Plasma Engineering, University of Tennessee

    “I am totally convinced that there is more than enough evidence for nuclear reactions to be occurring in these experiments.”
    Dr. M. Srinivasan, Associate Director physics group (retired), Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, India

    “No cover-up like this has happened before. It is a profound scandal in American science.” Charles Beaudette, author, “Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed”

    “Historically, it will be recorded that Beaudette wrote the truth at a time when science was a bit confused and not quite willing to accept it right away.”
    Dr. Michael R. Staker, materials scientist, Weapons and Materials Research Directorate US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

    • yamal

      really sad. all that confidence for more than 20 years and all we have to show is a couple of blog posts from mr. rossi. if he turns out to be not telling the truth (and who would still vouch for him wholeheartedly?) it all amounts to exactly nothing.

      • Gerrit

        wrong.

        You may perceive it to amount to nothing. You may denounce everything that you don’t want to see.

        Tritium is very hard to dismiss. Transmutations are very hard to dismiss. World class calorimetry showing anomalous temperatures is very hard to dismiss. Even more so when corresponding Helium measurements have been made.

        Mainstream science is investigating nano-particles more and more. Every week we hear about discoveries that weren’t thought possible a year ago.

        Eventually mankind will be able to explain the “cold fusion” anomalies too.

        • yamal

          actually all results so far have been terribly easy to dismiss, which is why this blog is called e-catworld and not celani-wireworld or iwamura-membraneworld and why it came to life in 2011 and not in 1993 or 2004. without rossi, we’re back to discussing the odd artifact with a handful of people calling it proof and the rest of the world remaining unconvinced to the point of being bored.

          • Gerrit

            this blog is also not called yamal’s-FUD-world

          • AstralProjectee

            DOW closes today at record high. Yet where are the jobs. Oh yeah that is right, robotics are taking our jobs slowly.

            One thing is clear here, we need a new economic, and political model. I am sure many models will work. Some more efficiently than others but I would think most of those models will be some kind of redistribution of wealth.

            When you come to see really how big the economic inequality has become, you realize this can’t be healthy, and there has to be a better way. Because not only is it immoral, but it’s also practical to change it in order to encourage equality, competition, and the health of America and the world.

            http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

            I think capitalism has run it’s course, and now it’s time for a new economic political model to accommodate the transition to the world of robotic intelligence.

            Even monkeys get the idea of inequality.

            Do Monkeys Understand Unequal Pay? (Video)
            http://youtu.be/Mea9VB0up_I

            It’s only a matter of time before people start waking up to the vast inequality and fighting back like that monkey.

            AI’s (artificial intelligence) are practically beginning to infiltrate the market. See for yourself.

            And Now, From I.B.M., Chef Watson
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/technology/ibm-exploring-new-feats-for-watson.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130228&_r=0

            AI’s (artificial intelligence) beginning to infiltrate the market. It’s just a matter of time, and figuring out the right computer program algorithms before we create some of the most advanced Artificial Intelligences on the planet with computers. Fortunately AI’s will never replace human experiential conscious experience with our rich emotions and feelings that we experience in life. Nothing should take that away including a robot.

          • GreenWin

            “The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) predicts that the tech boom will create more than one million new jobs by 2020.” February 27, 2013

          • AstralProjectee

            Well that is still up in the air at the very least. That is for specialized training that companies no longer train people for.

            Though I must say that those jobs will only last so long, because computer intelligence will ultimately end up taking more and more jobs that require advanced skills. So the perdicted job gain would be temporary if it does happen.

          • GreenWin

            There is a lot of pathoFUD yammering away. University Missouri’s SKINR pre-print paper finding energetic particles in Pd/D2 experiments confirms Navy’s SPAWAR fusion findings. Beaudett’s cover up has clearly failed.

          • yamal

            you obviously didn’t even bother to read that paper, did you? they found a possible contradiction, not confirmation. “pathofud”.. my a**

          • GreenWin

            Looks like Yammeral has picked up the unlit torch carried by MaryHodyYugoPopee-pathos.

          • Peter_Roe

            At least we are getting some of the more skilled ‘skeptics’ these days – well informed, good debaters and careful to avoid crossing the line. The unrelenting negativity is always the giveaway though. The key question is why would anyone spend reading and research time on a site dealing with a topic they claim to view as fairy dust?

          • GreenWin

            Filthy lucre??

          • Peter_Roe

            Indeed, but it’s gratifying that we are now deemed worthy of the best that money can buy. Some earlier incumbents were so inept it was rather insulting.

  • Paul

    If we only produced the bare necessities of life, there would not be enough jobs for everyone to afford the bare necessities of life. If we do not create added value, we cannot participate in the economy. Therefore we produce unnecessary items so that everyone can create value and participate in the economy. Thus the unnecessary items become necessary for everyone to afford the bare necessities of life. People who are paid just to exist should hope that society continues to value their existence. In the end it is others who decide our value, not us.

    • Alex

      I’ll be the first to buy the widget. Actually, case in point. Whoever invented fake flowers was a genius.

  • Alex

    1. People need to survive.
    >> No, we want to survive.

    2. In our world people need money to survive.
    >> In our world Money needs people + technology to survive. People need shelter, food,and water, which technology + money can provide. It is an inverse equation, if you have too much technology you need less people, and therefore will have less money. In the end, the amount of people will be self limiting, and quality of life will be lower until the equation balances out. Unless, we expand the uses of people to need other people to survive. The idea of making money and generosity do not go hand in hand, yet.

    3. To get money, (most) people need to have jobs.
    >> True, but money can come in many forms. A few hundred years ago, we used a barter system to survive.

    4. Most people would be happy not to have a job if they could survive without one (edit: This does not mean they don’t want to work — many people do their best work voluntarily).
    >> Most people would be happy not to take orders from someone else, but the same people would be happier to feel useful and bring purpose to the world around them. Using an intermediary for wealth or power, money, seems to create legions of self important, pompous, jerks who feel the need to antagonize those to have less of it than themselves. If you get rid of that intermediary and measure wealth in the amount of work you put into your survival, and to provide with your own two hands, than you would not have to worry about weather or not you had a job.

    5. Technology is developing to a point where jobs are disappearing (and many are not coming back), making it harder for people to survive.
    >> True, a company can buy a robot to perform tasks at a rate as cheap or cheaper than under developed countries. When the jobs come back home they are automated. However, In one generation of activities like that, you create a world where everyone on the planet equalize their wealth. A lot of people will go hungry, and the same businesses that automated will lose their customer base and fail anyway. The real question is who will break the cycle before there are only 500 people left on the planet. Someone or Some group of people will have to reinvent our social economic strategy, to include technology and people to coexist without greed. Its been done before during other crises, through taxes, and tea party.

    6. Technology is developing (we’re not there yet) to a point where it will be possible to live on much less.
    >> We are there, we were there in the 70’s. Why do you think most of America eat’s corn? Reinventing the person footprint, so a human can live off less of the environment is only going to be enabled by technology. What we really need, is reinventing the person footprint so the environment can live off the human. Net positive cities built from the infrastructural foundations up. Detroit is in a great position to experiment with this, now that they have gone bankrupt and will be getting new management. Put Steve Chu from Arpa-E in there to rebuild. People like him involved with high risk innovation is the one way to break the mold. In our society, this can’t happen. A city that can enable it’s inhabitants to survive by being a bounty to any human to lives there is death to money. But, it sure would be nice to invent it anyway and just see what happens.

    7. People need jobs to get the money to buy the technology that would allow them to live on less money. Without those jobs, in order for people to survive, someone (governments or other entities) will need to provide people with either money or technology.
    >> It’s a vicious cycle…but you are onto something. Yes, someone or some group would have to do something completely benevolent for others to survive. Is there a way to do it sustainable until everyone on the planet has the same opportunity to survive, is the real question. Utopian societies are fiction so far.

    8. Technology does not normally get developed for free.
    >> True. The ultimate answer for this, sadly, is developing technology to develop itself for free. How far do you let autonomous technology go in pursuit of this? Do you give up some of your freedoms so that your children, and their children will never go hungry? Robots who cater to your every need and desire, within the boundaries they set for you.

    • GreenWin

      Alex, as to your point 3: “To get money, (most) people need to have jobs.
      >> True, but money can come in many forms. A few hundred years ago, we used a barter system to survive.”

      Barter has always been a form of trade. But money dates from the Roman Empire 2200 years ago.

      • Alex

        Sorry, I meant in America. Indians and Pilgrims from the before times. But hey, when in Rome.

  • FlanOBrien

    According to this article, “How affordable solar changes everything for the consumer”, private energy generation through solar energy is really taking off in a big way in Australia.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/how-affordable-solar-changes-everything-for-the-consumer-68675?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-affordable-solar-changes-everything-for-the-consumer-68675

    Read the above article to see how politicians would sabotage a new distributed energy source, as they are doing with solar in Australia.

    “(in 2012) Australian households invested nearly $3 billion of their own money to generate some of their own power from their own rooftops.”

    One technique is to sabotage connection to the grid if a home has a solar installation.

    “In Queensland, the first signs of that have emerged. Watt also cites the case of commercial solar – where little has been installed in Australian because of huge connection fees, or moves by network operators to move to flat tariffs.”

    “Energy ministers who, in Australia, are the owners of such assets.”

    As Greeewin posted earlier, the key issue to implementing distributed energy is rooting out corruption of politicians. What hope is there of that?

    It is a chicken and egg situation. Abundant energy implies a more just and equitable society, whilst corrupt politicians will block such a move.

  • March 1 has passed and indeed Defkalion website has now been updated to read: “We are accepting in our laboratory, interested companies requesting to conduct common R&D on applications of our technology.”

  • Omega Z

    While we are concerned about Robots & such replacing all the Jobs, We should note that People in the know are concerned about not having enough Manpower in the future to meet the Demand for the Jobs that will need doing…

    Ironic, No?

    The Transition will be tough at times but, I believe it will all even out.
    Automation will provide more leisure time, but you will still have jobs.
    More then likely, Most people will have jobs that they enjoy. Obviously you can’t be a Brain Surgeon if you don’t have the abilities, but you’ll at least have the possibility of doing something you like as to a job you hate, but work at out of necessity. And if Not, Well you’ll have that extra Leisure time to enjoy.

    I’m sure every Generational Change has been seen from the same View. How will I make a living if Cars replace Buckboards & Horses, Etc, Etc…

    Also realize that less then a 100 years ago, 75% of the people worked the land. From Sun up to Sun down, & the hard life equaled a shorter lifespan. Very little leisure time at all. Everything was all about surviving another year. On average 80 hours a week just to survive & In your spare time you had to cut & split wood to survive the Cold Winters.

    Today, you work 40 hours, But only because of our modern lifestyle. No longer living in a small log cabin or earthen home, but a modern facility with piped in (Gas/Electric)heat & A/C. TV, Sat/Cable, Sound systems, Computers, Cell Phones, Eating out, Concerts, Sports events, Etc, Etc…

    Half of everything we earn goes to the extra’s we never had before.
    The Future will be no different. Only Our Toys & the Number of them will Change.

    In the Future, I can see people working 20 hour weeks, Half that going to our new toys, AND- We will still set around and complain. It’s all about perspective & that perspective will change, yet still be the same.

  • georgehants

    There seems to be a reasonable consensus on page that the present system is not ideal.
    The question becomes, what if anything can be done to improve things.
    As most of the population are not inclined to think deeply about change and are generally happy to keep their heads down and pay their bills and watch football, which is perfectly understandable, they put their trust in administrations or “clever” elite people, to be honest and competent in handling the big picture, while they do their share by doing the real work of keeping society running by growing food and collecting rubbish etc. etc.
    Forcing people to think they must have a job and work all the time to pay their bills is capitalism and the elites method of keeping total control of the population.
    All the while the more ambitious creators are rushing to make more money (as I did in my early years) then they also do not have time to think of others and how much these more able people could do for society if their energies where channeled into worthwhile projects instead of continually with most, searching for just a way to become richer in areas that have no value.
    Many good thoughts on page but the overriding topic is how to change things for the better.
    No easy task as it involves us all caring for others and not just ourselves.
    While we all put our own importance or unneeded desires above those of others we are of course being exactly as bad as the elite, rich, arrogant, who just manipulate for their own ends.

  • georgehants

    There seems to be a reasonable consensus on page that the present system is not ideal.
    The question becomes, what if anything can be done to improve things.
    As most of the population are not inclined to think deeply about change and are generally happy to keep their heads down and pay their bills and watch football, which is perfectly understandable, they put their trust in administrations or “clever” elite people, to be honest and competent in handling the big picture, while they do their share by doing the real work of keeping society running by growing food and collecting rubbish etc. etc.
    Forcing people to think they must have a job and work all the time to pay their bills is capitalism and the elites method of keeping total control of the population.
    All the while the more ambitious creators are rushing to make more money (as I did in my early years) then they also do not have time to think of others and how much these more able people could do for society if their energies where channeled into worthwhile projects instead of continually with most, searching for just a way to become richer in areas that have no value.
    Many good thoughts on page but the overriding topic is how to change things for the better.
    No easy task as it involves us all caring for others and not just ourselves.
    While we all put our own importance or unneeded desires above those of others we are of course being exactly as bad as the elite, rich, arrogant, who just manipulate for their own ends

    • georgehants

      Admin, sorry double post, please remove one. thanks.

  • orsobubu

    The starting point should be to answer this question: what is money? Money is people’s work, exploited, don’t payed and converted in capital by capitalists. All consequent issues descend from this one: fall of the profit rate, unemployment, overproduction, inflation, deflation, crisis, war and revolution.

    People starting to approach by scratch the crucial problem mentioned in the article, usually fail to recognize that the scientific theory that deals in a systematic and comprehensive way with the resolution of the problem has been around for over 150 years: the critique of political economy, which began by the works of Marx and Engels, and completed in its practical and organizational aspects by Lenin. Communism represents the definitive scientific answer to the question. Among the countless proofs of this, is the fact that two of the most important contemporary epistemologists, Feyerabend and Geymonat (briefly, the destroyers of Carl Popper) approved leninism. It is very interesting that even those who are not directly involved in the practice of revolution mature an interest in the theory, and therefore I suggest that they start the research studying simple Friedrich Engels’ Anti-Dühring book; the method is avoiding to advance in the lecture if every single line in the text has not been correctly understood and assimilated. This is dialectical materialism, perhaps the most complex and difficult science of all.

    For american readers, please don’t confuse scientific communism with soviet-chinese-etc state capitalism: Stalin killed all leninists; United States developed anti-communist ideology (mainly by McCarthy and Popper) for imperialistic reasons, to maintain their western world surplus value quota (dividing up Europe and possibly enlarging towards Asia) during a friendly cold-war with russians, after the Yalta’s conference definitions: the ultimate goal was to ideologize and submit western and eastern workers under respective capitalists, not to protect them against ther enemy, a typical divide-and-conquer tactics. Ironically, USA today is mainly a state capitalism country itself, and this implies the failure of that ideology too, and the triumph of marxism.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.” – Frank Zappa

      • orsobubu

        Zappa didn’t know marxism. In communism, anyone could own everything they want (also more than in capitalism, in average, because, without capitals, there are not capital crisis): in communism only means of production (factories) could not be privately owned and runned.

  • Simone

    Ever heard of The Venus Project? just have a look.. this is what was suppose to happen when machine replace man in thier jobs.. machine are supposed to work for us and we are suppose to do what we would like to do best. Teach, play, research, sleep. The society should higher the low needs standard and should give, house, food and istruction for free. This kind of world can exist only if we get rid of the problem, and the problem here is the money. World should move on to a higher purpose which moves peoples and hearts above money. Money should be removed if we want to really evolve into a better society.

    • orsobubu

      End the money: this is not ridiculous “venus project”. This is marxism. A 170 years-old science. Revolutionaries did not 3D videos on the internet, they cut off zar’s heads, they made the Red October, they showed us the way. When Europe will send your sons in a war in africa or asia, in which way will you react? watching youtube? you will not be able to end the money without a big fight against capitalists; money is wage work exploited, so you should end the wage work slavery first. But capitalist will engage in a wide military confrontation when a true global crisis will arise and capitals flows will plunge like in the thirties, to destroy and rebulid and start again the process of exploiting and accumulation. Better you start to organize and prepare.

      • Manuel Cruz

        Marxism is not science. That their supporters claimed it was is what actually forced sciencists to take a stance and start defining what exactly constitutes science and what is not. And marxism was (rightly so) catalogued as pseudoscience; marxism is a “theory of everything” in that it predicts everything (even contradictory data) and as such everything that can ever happen in history can be explained by marxism terms. So, it lacks the quality that makes science useful, yet it has the quality that makes for the best excuses. Marxism works as tinted coloured glasses that makes you see everything in the same colours, making you miss the full spectrum of light, and therefore reaching the wrong conclusions and making the wrong choices.

        In sum, all marxism is good for is to manipulate the scientifically illiterate towards a communist dictatorship system that doesn’t work (scientifically proven to fail), and later to make up excuses about why the current implementation failed, usually blaming others because for a believer in marxism, their theory cannot have flaws.

        Despite the overwhelming damage brought by marxism all around the world, it is still been taught on (mostly public) colleges and universities, disguised as “soft” sciences and under other names (such as sociology). Like other pseudosciences that have been proven to be totally wrong both in theory and practice, it should be abolished and their “experts” dismissed.

        • Also Karl Marx was a fraud and a Snob.

          http://internationaltimes.it/karl-marx-was-a-snob/

        • orsobubu

          All ideological crap derived from Popper. Feyerabend destroyed all of that. Crazy, really, from an epistemological point of view and I don’t have absolutely time to reply. Also historically: “Communism failed”: absurd, communism is absence of money, market, wage work, banks: never in the world did exist a country with communism. Russia had all of them. You’re referring to state capitalism. Please read my previuos post. Communism is a program for the future. All communists got killed by Stalin. You’re referring to state capitalism. You absolutely don’t have a clue about dialectical materialism. Obviously you NEVER studied the Capital, Anti-Duhring, Materialism and empirio-criticism. You never studied Bordiga. Ridiculous at best. One for all: you cannot explain money without exploitation. And exploitation REQUIRES revolution also for capitalism, because in capitalism every goods – also work force – must be sold at its cost price, not stolen. Without dialectical materialism, you cannot explain how bourgeoises replaced the kings.

          • No you have got it wrong.Anarchy is the way to go.
            http://internationaltimes.it/love-plus-anarchy/

          • orsobubu

            Surely, you’re right. Every leninist is an anarchist in perspective of course. But, for marxists, communism is the necessary step to go first. Look at Feyerabend, the most important epistemologist, he wrote about methodologic anarchism, but he agree with leninism too. This is also true for Geymonat. Do you want a proof? When Lenin decided the Kronstadt massacre (I will not explain here why it was necessary: all world bourgeoises were in Russia to wipe out bolscheviks with war ands terrorism, so it was a question of death or life for the revolution) also some anarchists perished. Definitely, it was not the right time for anarchism. It was also too early for communism.

          • Phil Lang

            I am worried about the automation of philosophers, particularly futurists. If “Deep Thought” can beat any chess player, how long until the human brain reverts to only searching for food and a mate?

        • Miles

          India will depend on coal for 20 years says minister

          http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2013/02/india-will-depend-on-coal-for-20-years-says-minister.html

          Maybe the e-Cat will be on sale by then?

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      How do you propose we get the billionaires and millionaires to give up their power?

      • Kim Patterson

        Send them a nice letter explaining
        that Cold Fusion is real.

        Respect
        Kim

        • Peterem

          Kim,

          Excellent. Your comment made me laugh.

      • Joel C.

        Incentivize them.

        A lot of these billionaries and millionaires became wealthy not because they wanted to make this much amount of money but because they had a passion for something which simply resulted in them making this amount of money.

        In a post-money world, these people would still function the same but without the money. That’s ok because they still get to do what they wanted to do in the first place anyway.

      • They are less than 5% on the population of this planet.
        (A minority)

  • Barry

    It’s true technology has been replacing jobs but automation has been going on in America since the 17th century when water powered mills began to saw lumber quick and efficiently putting sawyers, half of them working in a pit pulling a saw down for much of the day, out of work. When the mills were constructed some of the sawyers tried to burn them down. Mills advanced the textile industry, cotton gins replaced workers, the industrial age boomed, etc. We’ve been adapting ever since.

    Perhaps there will be a freeing factor in a future with promises of abundant energy, interconnected intelligence and robotic workers, challenging us to adapt and evolve in a new arena. The scary thing about it is it’s happening so fast and it no longer belongs in the category of science fiction but is going on as we google.

    Ps After seeing that 60 minutes piece, if any of you drive a forklift for a living it might be time to start looking for a new career.

  • The banking system wants us to believe that our society is depending on them an without them the world would fall into havoc. Democracy is not “private” banks called “federal” making money regardless if the market goes up or down.

    Check out this video!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTljJA_0Y6Y

  • George Miley’s LENR Startup is available again!
    Vote for it!

    http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861

    Maybe Frank can make a new advice? Now we have 10 days to beat the others 🙂

    • thanks barty… you caught the pole position… go Shumi, go !

    • clovis

      i voted, COUNT WAS 9 SO FAR.

    • Gerrit

      we have 1092 people who participated here on the “how old are you” poll.

      Please participate also in the vote for Miley !
      And please help to spread the word.

      We have 10 days this time.

    • artefact

      Thanks barty!

    • Barry

      Thanks Barty, voted.

  • (source: wikipedia)
    “In the Biblical Book of Leviticus, a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fiftieth year, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven…”

    “..at this season every household should recover its absent members, the land return to its former owners”

    Already thousands of years ago Middle Easterners chose to break the accumulation of capital at 50 year intervals, and to do it in an orderly way rather than by violent revolution.

    • daniel maris

      It’s an interesting thought experiment. What would happen if we brought that in now? Presumably there would be a slump as the 50 year limit approached and liquidity dried up but then a huge boost when you got to year one. It would be like instiutionalising our once in a lifetime mega-depressions.

  • Rajeb

    I would like to say the truth:
    The world in general and the Western Nations particularly going through a collapsing state in a gradual collapsing journey which started since the begining of this century.

    • Rajeb

      Economical, social,and moral collapse.

      • Peter_Roe

        The American government at least, seem to be well prepared for this, whether or not they succeed in disarming their citizens on various pretexts:

        http://www.naturalnews.com/039345_DHS_arms_race_armored_vehicles.html

        • GreenWin

          Peter, from your link:

          “This is at the same time the American people are arming up like never before as well. U.S. ammunition manufacturers are currently producing over one billion rounds per week. All that ammo is flying off the shelves, with virtually nothing remaining in stock anywhere.”

          • Rajeb

            “American people are arming up like never before as well. U.S. ammunition manufacturers are currently producing over one billion rounds per week.”
            —————————
            Well they prepair for another American Civil War ahead.

          • GreenWin

            Rajeb, no… a civil war is a war between one people. The war Peter suggests is perpetrated by a government that no longer pretends to represent the people. But I greatly doubt it will happen.

  • I definitely think we need some kind of Basic minimum income supplement for everyone to help redistribute some of the concentrated wealth and ensure that people everywhere can have a chance to survive and that the consumer base will stay strong. That way the rich can still be rich (just not quite as rich as now) and they won’t have to worry about the poor mans revolution breaking down their doors.

    The Basic Income shouldn’t be enough that people will all get lazy and not want to work at all but it should provide the bare minimum for food and shelter. We will also definitely need to create new kinds of incentive programs and educational oppurtunities to encourage people to get involved in worthwhile projects. Perhaps things like cleaning up the environment, community gardens, arts and health programs, Big Brothers and Big Sisters Prgrams ect.

  • Wes

    To put the magnitude of Frank’s challenge in perspective: in India about 70% of the population is currently engaged in agriculture (i.e. growing food). In the U.S. only 2% are needed in this field, due to the very high degree of automation used in U.S. agriculture. IF that level of automation comes to India (and it will), roughly 700 million people need to find another source of income! This is a significant issue; so significant that it is a “hotter potatoe” in political circles than the potential impact of free energy; no one wants to touch it.

    • Right. and even required.

      You should REALLY read “the next convergence”, where this principle is well explained.

      It is the job of the government to educate the workers so they can participate the new economy that is ALLOWED to exist, when farming need less hand.
      In old no growth system, rich get richer, poor get poorer, slowly, and unproductive jobs are maintained just to avoid social collapse.

      When productivity of farming increase, some unemployed farmer HAVE TO find a job into the industrry, this mean that they have to have a minimum education to work in an industry that ask low level of education.
      With time more and more education is needed, and old industry collapse like the farming industry. It happens in Korea in the 90s.
      Of course the governments, like you, oppose that change and want to maintain the rich rich, the poor workers working, and the farmer farming.
      Th good things for goverment is to fund education, help unmployed to survive and educate, help foreign investors to increase local productivity and education, creat infrastructure to host industry…

      Really read “the next convergence”…

  • automation engineer

    Automation,new technologies are expensive.It is cheaper to make product in China by hand,using slaves.I am 64 year old engineer & designed hundreds of machines to make dipers,computer discs,cars,boat motors,swiches,airplanes,you name it, I have done it.For last 5 years I am without work,I could teach new generation of designers.The progress of humanity stopped 35 years ago, now we design only wapons & toys.

  • Barak

    Have you watched the three Zeitgeist films: The Movie, Addendum, and Moving Forward. The documentary Thrive is a good watch as well. They are all on you tube. If you have not seen them, they might present some ideas for your consideration. I would watch in the order of Zeitgeist: The Movie, Moving Forward, Thrive, and then Addendum. It is important to watch them all even if some of the material doesn’t align with your current beliefs, I think you will find that they have a good amount of insight to offer. Another interesting playlist is found on the spirit science channel on youtube. The playlist is titled “Spirit Science” and there over 20 videos so it will take some time.

  • More than two years ago, I wrote to Rossi about these issues on his Journal blog. I put a copy of that here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

    You can read a lot more about these themes on my website. In brief, there have always been five interwoven economies, and the balance of them changes with technological changes and cultural changes:
    * A subsistence economy (“There’s some lovely berries over here.”);
    * A gift economy (“The meat from this deer I hunted is going to spoil; I’ll share it with the tribe, and others will share their hunting results some other time as they have in the past.”);
    * A planned economy (“Let’s put the longhouse here. I’ll cut the trees, you level the ground, you over there will put up the walls, and you over there will cook us some food while we are busy with these other tasks.”);
    * An exchange economy (“You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. I’ll trade you some of my extra berries for some of your extra deer meat.”);
    * A theft (or conquest) economy (“What’s yours is mine because I’m stronger, cleverer, sneakier, or can afford better lawyers.”).

    Paid human labor has less and less value due to several causes including:
    * robotics, AI, and other automation,
    * better design,
    * the accumulation of physical infrastructure,
    * relatively cheaper energy (which can often substitute for human labor), and/or
    * the emergence of voluntary social networks.

    So, we can expect the balance between those five interwoven economies to change as our technology and society changes, perhaps with:
    * A subsistence economy through 3D printing, gardening robots, local PV solar panels, and other local clean energy technologies (like cold fusion or something else);
    * A gift economy through the internet, like sharing digital files to use with our 3D printers or gardening robots, or coordinating the movement of free goods like through Freecycle;
    * A planned economy on a variety of scales, including through taxes, subsidies and regulation affecting market dynamics;
    * An exchange economy marketplace softened by a basic income; and
    * Minimizing the impulse to theft (or conquest) and related violence through the previous four changes.

    The particular balance a society adopts is going to reflect the unique blend of history, culture, infrastructure, environment, relationships, mythologies, religions, and politics of that society.

  • AlainCo

    just a new article on innovation toronto
    http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2013/03/yes-robots-are-coming-for-our-jobs-now-what/
    about how productivity decouple from jobs.
    Automation make people more wealthy, but no rule it is equally distributed…

    that is the problem to solve, not the robots fault.

    the original article is even more rich:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=yes-robots-are-coming-for-our-jobs-now-what&print=true