The Venus Project, an ambitious project for sure. Thanks for posting!

Interesting how pretty much all the objections you get are based on misunderstandings of the proposal, isn't it? :) It's what I encounter all the time. So I'm curious about possibilities for communication that has less misunderstanding in it. Otherwise I find myself spending all the time on trying to "correct" other people's interpretations, and not being able to move forward from there.

I actually haven't heard of this before.  I will have to ponder it some more.

A resource based economy fails due to the same top down structure that makes our current system so bad.

It sounds nice because "science", but really science and the view that progress is king, are fallacies.  We are not the most technologically advanced society that has been on this planet.

We can't even argue correctly about climate change.  People, scientists even, are still arguing that CO2 is the thing that needs to be measured, when it was shown that it is a following indicator long long long ago.  CO2 should have been removed from the discussion long long long ago.

So, I do not believe in a scientific application of redistribution.  It doesn't work.  No matter how well you divide things up.  If you have 8 units of food and 10 people, 2 are going to die.  Innovation happens at the individual level and can never be predicted or have a plan made around it.  It is the bunch of individuals trying various approaches that can increase productivity to 10 units of food.

To express this in a different way.  All of the above structures (pictures) are pretty.  And in the same breath, pretty useless.  Real usable structures don't look like that.  Real usable structures have nooks and crannies.  They have individual details everywhere.  They have a character every place you look.  The structures above only make engineering a bit simpler.  Make maintenance a bit easier.  But destroy all the humans that would live within them, mandating a boring life.

Very interesting, thank you!

great article! keep on posting!

https://media.makeameme.org/created/job-well-done-84qwb8.jpg

In a theoretical vacuum, I agree completely. You're advocating a human race run with logic and sensibility, by individuals who understand and are not afraid to face scientific reality.

The problem, as ever, **is reality.** A transition to a resource based system  would mean crushing change, on a scale I don't think is easily understood. Our theoretical scientist leaders would be forced, almost immediately, to figure out how to get rid of a lot of us. Even if this meant an enforced, global sterilization, it would still get a response akin to mass murder.

And that assumes a world where the human race wants to be ruled by logic and sensibility.  I think perhaps a majority of us wish for this, but when push comes to shove  irrationality tends to trump rationality any day of the week. The former can never be convinced by the latter and the latter never thinks to do anything but try and convince the former.

A nice idea though. Perhaps after the Star Trek style nuclear annihilation this will be a viable option many hundreds of years later for the patchwork survivors of the human race.

The greatest insights economists have arguably ever made is that economies and societies are self organizing systems with nobody in control, that humans aren't wise enough to plan a whole economy and that when top down economic systems are forced upon societies, you get nothing but oppression, starvation and murder.  Both the Venus Project and Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist movement - while well intentioned - collapse under their own weight when considering the overwhelming evidence that planned economies have harmed vast numbers of real people, while self organizing ones have benefited the majority of the human population.  You don't have to be an economist to intuit that given the imperfection of man, we are incapable of designing a perfect - or even near perfect - system to take care of all the world's ills and remain relatively free.

Hey @logic, it has been awhile since I last had an opportunity to comment on a post of yours.  Looking forward to reading about your thoughts here. Politicians have really messed up their countries before. Usually I see it because changes were based off emotions and not logical thought processes.

Although I agree with some of the shortcomings of the current social and economic systems as presented in the article, I find it difficult to take RBE ideas seriously when I'm confronted with vague statements such as the following, and I quote:

«This economic system is based on intelligent, strategic management of Earth's resources»; «solutions that would be the most strategically efficient and sustainable for meeting the needs of humanity»; «it is designed around scientific understanding of natural laws»; «which can be fixed by an intelligent and strategic management and allocation of resources and technology».

What does it really mean to have an intelligent, strategic management of resources? Who ascertains its quality? Is there a single, beyond doubt, most efficient system, anyway? 

What does it mean that the system is designed around scientific understanding? Will scientists rule the world and decide what's best for everyone? Will it be a technocracy of sorts?

And what are humanity's needs, and who decides that? Are they merely physiological in nature? Does the freedom to pursue one's own goals fall into humanity's needs?

These questions are meant to illustrate how vague I find many of the descriptions of RBE to be. I haven't been able to find a clear and comprehensive article which lays out concrete proposals for dealing with these and other issues. In the end, I always get the sense that a RBE is just a sketchy and highly idealized social organization which will always remain utterly unattainable.

Just to be fair, I wouldn't expect an introductory article to be thorough. I hope I might be able to discuss these things further once you go into more details in the next articles.

What do you think about RBE in context of cryptocurrencies? I think it will turn out to be the solution that works from within all nations, because its borderless and not held by governments.

Hi dude!Great to see you active again. Very interesting article, thank you. 
I hope you can come to Lisbon in October.

Very Good Post. With this emerging global economy and Rapid growth of industrialisation is good for everybody, but we have to more  concious of about our nature and take necessary step to reduce all type of pollution and value of humanity. We have to increase used of renewable energy like solar energy, hydro power, wind energy and reused of waste .

Resource-Based Economy is a great Scientific Theory. Unfortunately in the real world, that's all it is. It is very similar to a Utopian theory. An abundance of resources that does away with the monetary system. One of the main issues with this logic is 'Who or what is providing all these resources?' Until we can develop robot overlords to provide for all of our needs, we are basically stuck providing for ourselves as humans. No matter how efficient a system is, there still has to be someone or something producing resources. That is what currency was designed for. It's a corrupt system, but currency helps level the playing field between producers and consumers. There is always an influx of population. People are always dying and being born. Having a system that uses resources crudely allows for a cushion in population fluctuation. Should there be a dramatic increase in population, an inefficient system can be tweaked to allow for the extra mouths to feed. Efficiency could actually be humanity's downfall. If every bit of energy was accounted for, there would be no more room for growth. The fact that people can LIVE in poverty just goes to show that we have an abundance of resources. In Order for the monetary system to work there has to be poor and rich. Social programs such as Food Stamps and Free Health Care are actually what keep our system working. Without the poor using social programs, money wouldn't have and value.

This a very interesting topic to me. The way you explain things are easy to follow. I am looking forward to the next post ...

This post received a 43% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @thecryptofiend!  For more information, [click here](https://steemit.com/steemit/@randowhale/introducing-randowhale-will-you-get-the-100-vote-give-it-a-shot)!

Nice read @logic.. Keep it up!

> For example, finding ways of providing food and medical care to vast amounts of people living in poverty is a technical issue not political. 

That is simply false. While the creation of food itself may be technical problem, the solution would require a reallocation of ressources and that is certainly political. Reallocation means taking away somewhere, be it by taxation, by inflation or unpaid/voluntary work.

While your view certainly sounds idealistic it is, sadly, also completely unrealistic.

Full automation can create abundance. Yes, it can. But someone needs to build those automatons and they wont do it for free, even if they wanted to. There's a cost to everything, monetary or time. 

People always forget that someone needs to spend time implementing their ideas.

So untill robots are somehow self-producing, this will not work.

Also, the scientific method has never, ever actually created a product. It created the basis for products. Then the scientist - or more often someon else - turned it into a practical solution in form of a product. That is unfair, but it is what happens. Practical application requires a different mindset and it's not the scientific method.