Is Capitalism the problem?

[Aron]

@Moretorque

Aron the thing you are missing and do not seem to understand to what point it matters is all of our power centers have been captured ( patent office ) and how did they do this ? by taking the competition out of the financial system so they control all purchasing in the economy. THAT IS HOW THE WORLD GOT HERE, if you are going to do a bottom up society you have to have a bottom up financial system which means competition.

No it really does not, the reason for the monetary system today is the necessity of individuals and small groups to rely on products produced by other groups. The inability of local groups and individuals to localize their means of production. But with new innovations like 3D printing this is starting to change a lot. Competition becomes obsolete when needs are met in an open source way so even if competition was necessary at the start of an open source economic system it would go away once all the localized infrastructure producing all the needed goods and utilities got set up and needs were met unconditionally. I agree with you that the power centers of society have been largely dominated and this was not an Inevitable outcome under capitalism but there were people who ended up abusing this weakness of capitalism to try to dominate.

Look at the bailouts in the trillions where these corrupt business were not allowed to fail, if we had competition we could get fresh blood into the system and purge the losers who just loot.....

Those bailouts are an example of competition producing the big winners, those who have won so much as to control the system. If those banks were gotten rid of it is not like the owners of the banks would not still be rich and use their money to take over another industry if they had to. As they already do all the time, people at the top of the ladder of the corporate world swap back and forth between different boards of directors or the government itself all the time. Even if you forcibly take away all the money of those rich people in the banks the structure of banks and the federal reserve in general is a scam.

Anybody who is not for free and open markets with private property rights and competition is for a corrupt ruling body and is basically dumb down and stupid. Why do you think as I stated they are adding toxins to everything ? because they want us dumb down and stupid so they can manage us with no competition.

If you have never been in business for yourself your input is very limited on understanding this. Competition is the road to perfection. THE CURRENT SYSTEM " FINANCIAL SYSTEM " IS TOTAL SOCIALISM for the accounting class. THEY PRIVATIZE THE PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES AND PUSH THE LOSSES and DEBTS ON ALL OF US AND CALL IT CAPITALISM.

Competition does not produce perfection it's all about cutting corners to defeat competitors regardless of if that hinders your product. Yes I agree that the system has become corrupt but this is showing a weakness in the system's structure compared to a Cooperative one. On the point of competition giving more choice, yes it is more choice compared to a Monopoly but it's a lot less compared to open source if lots of different designs can be produced without having to maintain market viability. You get to choose between a Ford or a Chevy but you do not get to choose a car with a far more efficient design that would not break down fast enough to maintain Cyclical Consumption of goods. And you definitely don't get to choose between using one of these oil dependent inefficient cars and some kind of ultra efficient Mag Rail public transit system available for free, since as you have said with the Rockefellers buying the railroads they want everyone stuck on buying gas over and over again.

Let me put all this another way, what would be a more ideal society to you than an open source bottom up one where needs are met unconditionally? What would you think if others tried to do this? If the technology isn't there to localize the means of production so a large scale medium of exchange is not necessary then it's not there but that doesn't mean that isn't what technology is tending towards over time. There are even 3D printers that print houses and electronics now, along with advanced indoor farming and drone delivery, the tendency here is for the possibility of local need satisfaction to increase more and more. In the meantime while we can't do this yet it's not like I think it's wrong to use monetary exchange or something like Bitcoin which gets around the issue of banks and the federal reserve. It might end up working to some extent and if it does that's good, but it's not an ideal state of society that should be strived for as the ultimate goal.

Unfortunately, I have not gotten around to viewing the documentary you referenced earlier yet and responding about that, but I will try to get to it soon.

[whitewilly]

@whitewilly
The handwaving resumes. Yes I have heard of Systems Biology but it does not give you an excuse to ignore everything I say and simply refuse to respond in detail to the link i provided on the education subject. The immune system's interaction with the brain isn't anything i've gotten around to researching yet. But simply making vague mentions of it is no grounds to dismiss all research on motivation much of which is more than recent enough.

If you want to ask me what my opinion is on socialism and capitalism it is all there already in my earlier posts. I think capitalism is a very inefficient system that drives conflict. While some ideas of socialism have good merit like universal healthcare it's obvious that many examples in the past of 'Socialism' were quite bad. I agree with the cooperation based principles in socialism but not the top down approach that many historical examples of socialism or communism have implemented. I read the article on Europe you referenced which basically says Europe's geographic setup drove conflict which forced people to develop civilization. Do you think capitalism is necessary because conflict could in some cases necessitate making an innovation to survive? What's your conclusion?

Something you should know though about competition is that it actually in many cases encourages failure to innovate. For example if you want to maintain continuous consumption making a superior product is not a good idea, if your product is too effective it will last long enough that consumers don't need to buy it again. And aside from that, if all you need to do is just beat your competitors prices then the standard is based on them alone not making products and innovations that are made as maximally effective as possible.

The fact is is I'm well read on all research on motivation as I study brain science in University. Dominance is the general force underlying all reality. Adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, behind the desire to expand one’s power. All life seeks primarily to expand itself. No matter what type of situation individuals find themselves in, their will to power comes through in some way or another. Nietzsche calls these different ways the disguised forms of the will to power, meaning that they appear to stem from something else, such as altruism or sympathy, when they really originate in one's instinct to bring someone under one's own power. Which is why pure socialism fails. It doesn't really encourage competition/thinking the way capitalism does. As the article says: "We grow into a context of demands that then causes the growth of the required level of complexity to manage the knowledge and acquisition of details to fill in the domains. For the most part, this means that the “lazy intelligence” only executes when it is necessary for survival".

https://bit.ly/2w9ASgx

Anyway, this site is not a good place to discuss serious ideas. Have you looked around at the topics? Lol. Yeah, I'm not going to put an serious thoughts on here.

[Aron]

@whitewilly

The fact is is I'm well read on all research on motivation as I study brain science in University. Dominance is the general force underlying all reality. Adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, behind the desire to expand one’s power. All life seeks primarily to expand itself. No matter what type of situation individuals find themselves in, their will to power comes through in some way or another. Nietzsche calls these different ways the disguised forms of the will to power, meaning that they appear to stem from something else, such as altruism or sympathy, when they really originate in one's instinct to bring someone under one's own power. Which is why pure socialism fails. It doesn't really encourage competition/thinking the way capitalism does. As the article says: "We grow into a context of demands that then causes the growth of the required level of complexity to manage the knowledge and acquisition of details to fill in the domains. For the most part, this means that the “lazy intelligence” only executes when it is necessary for survival".

https://bit.ly/2w9ASgx

Anyway, this site is not a good place to discuss serious ideas. Have you looked around at the topics? Lol. Yeah, I'm not going to put an serious thoughts on here.

You have a big set of assumptions here. All forms of altruism or will for self improvement are automatically equated with dominance over others in your views, you even equate competition with thinking. You ignored all my points about how competition undermines any form of progress. Competition encourages a form of thinking oriented around dominance, but this is partly a cause of laziness in the first place as when you introduce people into a competition centered environment it becomes their focus and non competitive activities start to be seen as secondary. The site you linked already admits genetic determinism is debunked so something you should understand is that the environment has a huge impact not just genes.Your idea that genes from animal ancestors which needed to compete to survive are the main influences doesn't have a basis. Those same animals did not experience an environment where their needs were met and a non-competitive focus emerged.

TLDR you are still making a disproven argument while ignoring the evidence that external rewards/punishments do undermine motivation on skills that require any higher cognitive function. The evidence is there that performance is undermined by rewards so what other proof do you need to believe there is an issue with capitalism? I already showed you directly how capitalism is an inefficient structure with evidence like the modern system of patents restricting massive amounts of information, and capitalism's absolute need for Cyclical Consumption of goods constantly. But you mostly just ignored these points too.

You're making a genetic fallacy. Opinion is from someone on Happier Abroad->Automatically reject the person's idea. Yes some of the threads on here are stupid but it is not changing the status of the evidence for this discussion.I showed more than enough evidence here to prove the point.

[Moretorque]

Did you write the essay post on the Perils of Capitalism because some of it is just plain wrong and some of it is word for word what I posted here, also when I speak of competition I am speaking of having options for anything from buying a car to getting your house painted.

The open source economy is plain juvenile in many ways in this day and age and you can do it to a point but is not practical for all everywhere at all. By the way a 3D printer needs power as does any community you build that isn't in the stone ages and they know this so they have power options locked down and routed through them.

Aron how old are you ? you seem kinda young in your thinking...

[Aron]

@Moretorque

Supposedly it was a bot who copied lots of things from posts in this thread. You didn't listen to the substance of what I said about competition and how it actually reduces options, i already went over how it reduces options for transport. You can choose between what two auto industry corporations sell but the same factors like planned obsolence and intrinsic obsolence apply for both due to capitalism's inherent mechanics.

Yes trying to do things in a bottom up open source way everywhere right now is not practical, if it was everyone would be doing it already. Since the many things built by means of production which have higher capabilities than anything like 3d printers can do are all owned by the big corporations so you can't simply build everything in an open source way with the current state of things. It would be nice if you could but that isn't possible right now.

No i am not that old, I guess you will use that as a reason to say I must be wrong and not respond to the substance of the ideas i point out. Like actually addressing these key issues capitalism inevitably produces:
1:Mandatory cyclical consumption(Consumers must continue cyclically buying goods for profit to be maintained)
2:Planned obsolence(When goods are intentionally made to break down after some amount of time so that consumers will have to buy a new one)
3:Intrinsic obsolence(When goods are inevitably built to a lower quality in order to have a low enough price to compete, resulting in them being less long lasting and more quickly obsolete)

[Moretorque]

It's not because you are young at all but the youth have romantic ideas which in some ways are based of wrong inputs and the current system has been loaded with bad inputs on purpose. This is why the capitalist " as you call them " who created communism brainwash the youth with lies.

There has been no real capitalism at all in the past from what I can see, private property and open markets haven't really ever existed on a large scale. I have been in business in some way or another for most of my life and others I know who have been in business for themselves really do not want to own it all, they just want to be able to earn a good living and be left alone to pursue life with the public and their communities on their terms and yes they do want profit but most people want to put back into their communities.

Why do you think our rulers have killed anybody who tries to change the monetary system ? because they know this is the key to running it all as they see fit, you are wrong about competition being bad " JD said What about competition ", use your head please. The debt based monopolized monetary system is what is jamming the system up and stopping local economies from breaking free from the top down system.....

You have been duped into believeing you can have free markets with a monopolized debt based system and you cannot. This is how I can tell you are young and they have done this dupe on purpose to meet their end goals.
Nobody world wide can bring their product to market without using the credit monopoly as a intermediary who ultimately decides the value of all the inputs in said product. They do this by deciding the value of the currencies world wide and call it capitalism when in reality it's the communist con job by the CITI.

Lenin stated we will get rid of the middle class through inflation and taxes done by this userist system and look around you....... All done by bad money......

There is their point of view as well why they are doing what they are doing and a mathematically perfected economy if implemented with mans current state of thought would probably strip the planet in short order even faster.

They feel most humans are dumb and must be controlled like animals and I hope they are not right but........I don't know this thing be pretty dam stupid!

[Aron]

@Moretorque

It's not because you are young at all but the youth have romantic ideas which in some ways are based of wrong inputs and the current system has been loaded with bad inputs on purpose. This is why the capitalist " as you call them " who created communism brainwash the youth with lies.

There has been no real capitalism at all in the past from what I can see, private property and open markets haven't really ever existed on a large scale. I have been in business in some way or another for most of my life and others I know who have been in business for themselves really do not want to own it all, they just want to be able to earn a good living and be left alone to pursue life with the public and their communities on their terms and yes they do want profit but most people want to put back into their communities.

What about the periods of time when the US had no federal reserve in place? Yes, I know, just because people are in a capitalist system doesn't mean they suddenly want to dominate everything. It may have some corrupting influence, but it's not like that means on a mass scale everyone's going to become just like the worst types in the world. I get it that people want profit since in the monetary system you definitely need that to have any form of success, the problem is with the system in general.

Why do you think our rulers have killed anybody who tries to change the monetary system ? because they know this is the key to running it all as they see fit, you are wrong about competition being bad " JD said What about competition ", use your head please. The debt based monopolized monetary system is what is jamming the system up and stopping local economies from breaking free from the top down system.....

I already told you I think it would be a lot better as a system if not for the debt based currency and the fed along with the interest system that makes many bankruptcies automatic, but what i'm saying is i think that there are better systems possible than that and overall it would be a lot more efficient for everyone to pursue said type of system.

[/quote]You have been duped into believeing you can have free markets with a monopolized debt based system and you cannot. This is how I can tell you are young and they have done this dupe on purpose to meet their end goals.
Nobody world wide can bring their product to market without using the credit monopoly as a intermediary who ultimately decides the value of all the inputs in said product. They do this by deciding the value of the currencies world wide and call it capitalism when in reality it's the communist con job by the CITI.[/quote]

They use the current system but you are not listening to the inherent problems with the competition focused system I told you about. As I went over with patents, cyclical consumption, and so on. These are systemic issues. How would a true free market as you describe avoid the issue of cyclical consumption forcing companies to not build things to last? How would a true free market avoid huge levels of information blockage with patents?

Lenin stated we will get rid of the middle class through inflation and taxes done by this userist system and look around you....... All done by bad money......

There is their point of view as well why they are doing what they are doing and a mathematically perfected economy if implemented with mans current state of thought would probably strip the planet in short order even faster.

They feel most humans are dumb and must be controlled like animals and I hope they are not right but........I don't know this thing be pretty dam stupid!

As I told you before I agree that 'bad money' is a big cause of what's happening right now, but while an honest money system like you imagine would be a lot better, it would eventually become obsolete and no longer necessary if things are done the right way.

A real 'perfect economy' would be about actual efficiency with resources and avoiding as much waste as possible, that would be the whole point of making an open source system like I'm describing. By localizing all the means of production as much as you can you reduce the wastefulness of the supply chain where goods are sent halfway across the world when they could be built a few miles away and use 100x less fuel. You couldn't implement a top down tyranny in this kind of system, you wouldn't have a mechanism to control the population if they already independently meet their own needs. Normally you control the population by manipulating the financial system so they do not have enough money, artificially, when the physical resources are there to build localized hydroponics sufficient for them all and call it a day. The same goes with energy needs really. All the factories machinery and etc needed to switch to a totally renewable localized grid where each area is self sufficient is all present and the potential efficiency only increases over time. So the real question isn't whether it's physically possible to make capitalism basically obsolete, just whether that will actually happen or not.

What I am wondering is why you don't really seem to consider my idea of an ideal society much. Why wouldn't your version of an honest money system eventually lead to an open source economy like this where capitalism starts to become obsolete? If you do agree with me that my idea of a freedom focused system that satisfies everyone's needs is technically possible then what is the problem with it exactly? And if you don't agree on it being possible then i would want to know why.

[Moretorque]

How did Hitler bring his country to where he did in WW 2 economically and industry wise with all the war weapons after it was taken completely over following WW 1 and also the early colonist pre revolution also started issuing money with no debt attached as well. They were using the money just as a tool and not profiting off the issuance of it by itself with usury. This is why the elite declared war both times, they know!!!!

Did you watch the Money Masters ? probably the finest 3 plus hour historical documentary ever made.

Intellectual property rights need to be protected for the individual, the US patent office if I am not mistaken only gives a 20 year patent which is fair I would say but the patent office has been coopted by the money changers.

When you issue the money as they have you pretty much can take anything over over time, Einstein was a Zionist and he worked for a patent office ?????. Everything or most of what you have been taught in the mainstay is in fact all lies....

Intelligent people can make an honest civilization work with honest money but I have come to the conclusion most people really are complete idiots and I have little hope for humanity, the money really is that big of the key. Why do you think Lenin stated 90% of the ability for them to pull off their iron curtain world wide dictatorship is based on them controlling all the purchasing tickets world wide.

It's the same thing for those who want a honest society that serves humanity, 90% OF THE WAY THEIR IS A HONEST MONETARY SYSTEM.

I am all for living in our local eco's with brotherly love and pic'in toe jam all day but we still need a medium of exchange no matter what and ending most of the corruption in this world starts there.........and by the way I do not want to be a BORG and you sound like that type of mentality, that is how our rulers keep duping each generation of the youth.... More centralized power promises NO COMPETITION equals less choices... Did you know wall street doesn't have near the amount of companies it did just 20 years ago on the stock market ?

The money multipliers have seriously consolidated their power in the last 20 or so years.

[whitewilly]

@whitewilly

The fact is is I'm well read on all research on motivation as I study brain science in University. Dominance is the general force underlying all reality. Adaptation and the struggle to survive is a secondary drive in the evolution of animals, behind the desire to expand one’s power. All life seeks primarily to expand itself. No matter what type of situation individuals find themselves in, their will to power comes through in some way or another. Nietzsche calls these different ways the disguised forms of the will to power, meaning that they appear to stem from something else, such as altruism or sympathy, when they really originate in one's instinct to bring someone under one's own power. Which is why pure socialism fails. It doesn't really encourage competition/thinking the way capitalism does. As the article says: "We grow into a context of demands that then causes the growth of the required level of complexity to manage the knowledge and acquisition of details to fill in the domains. For the most part, this means that the “lazy intelligence” only executes when it is necessary for survival".

https://bit.ly/2w9ASgx

Anyway, this site is not a good place to discuss serious ideas. Have you looked around at the topics? Lol. Yeah, I'm not going to put an serious thoughts on here.

You have a big set of assumptions here. All forms of altruism or will for self improvement are automatically equated with dominance over others in your views, you even equate competition with thinking. You ignored all my points about how competition undermines any form of progress. Competition encourages a form of thinking oriented around dominance, but this is partly a cause of laziness in the first place as when you introduce people into a competition centered environment it becomes their focus and non competitive activities start to be seen as secondary. The site you linked already admits genetic determinism is debunked so something you should understand is that the environment has a huge impact not just genes.Your idea that genes from animal ancestors which needed to compete to survive are the main influences doesn't have a basis. Those same animals did not experience an environment where their needs were met and a non-competitive focus emerged.

TLDR you are still making a disproven argument while ignoring the evidence that external rewards/punishments do undermine motivation on skills that require any higher cognitive function. The evidence is there that performance is undermined by rewards so what other proof do you need to believe there is an issue with capitalism? I already showed you directly how capitalism is an inefficient structure with evidence like the modern system of patents restricting massive amounts of information, and capitalism's absolute need for Cyclical Consumption of goods constantly. But you mostly just ignored these points too.

You're making a genetic fallacy. Opinion is from someone on Happier Abroad->Automatically reject the person's idea. Yes some of the threads on here are stupid but it is not changing the status of the evidence for this discussion.I showed more than enough evidence here to prove the point.

Nah, nothing you say is rooted in science. It's all just hollow conjecture from old books. The external rewards/punishments you speak of is completely out of context. Through the trials and tribulations of harsh environments and dangerous predators, nature slowly molded us into what we are today. You were designed to be strong, fearless, confident, and powerful. The drive for greatness has been hard-coded into your DNA. The human brain is a very efficient machine that was designed to conserve resources. That is another way of saying that we are lazy by nature. Since the environment is no longer forcing us to man up, the majority of men succumb to the temptation of the path of least resistance. With primal desires met, it is very easy to fall into comfort. Which is why pure socialism fails. It’s a flawed system based on completely faulty principles that aren’t consistent with human behavior and can’t nurture the human spirit. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

[Aron]

@whitewilly

Nah, nothing you say is rooted in science. It's all just hollow conjecture from old books. The external rewards/punishments you speak of is completely out of context. Through the trials and tribulations of harsh environments and dangerous predators, nature slowly molded us into what we are today. You were designed to be strong, fearless, confident, and powerful. The drive for greatness has been hard-coded into your DNA. The human brain is a very efficient machine that was designed to conserve resources. That is another way of saying that we are lazy by nature. Since the environment is no longer forcing us to man up, the majority of men succumb to the temptation of the path of least resistance. With primal desires met, it is very easy to fall into comfort. Which is why pure socialism fails. It’s a flawed system based on completely faulty principles that aren’t consistent with human behavior and can’t nurture the human spirit. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

Previous natural conditions with evolution and so on happened in a state of general scarcity where there are not enough resources to go around. Although even then, the same principle of punishments and rewards was well born out by the evidence, it is obvious in history that when you force people to do something with a punishment or reward they are less capable of complicated intellectual tasks. People used it with slavery anyways but they did this to do basic physical tasks like farming and etc. Back before the neolithic revolution cooperation was still an essential skill for the survival of the tribe and capitalism runs counter to this. Yes, survival threats like the threat of starvation obviously existed and people needed to do work, but that does not show intrinsic motivation to not exist. It's proven that it does based on the evidence with pretty much all forms of forced labor in history, with physical slavery being the most obvious example where intrinsic motivation is undermined. I don't deny that people are capable of becoming lazy when their needs are met but that does not make this some obvious inevitable unavoidable fact, that people are always going to become lazy when needs are met, or even that the majority always will. You also are treating all systems where needs are met as the same, socialist systems of welfare are often still oriented around using punishments/rewards to get the individual back into work. Leading into a related issue of many unnecessary jobs being created to maintain employment. Even under your definition of intelligence, once people understand that planning into the future and developing skills are both important for survival not only of the individual but the civilization and group as a whole it's obvious that learning is important.

Back then, it would also be harder for people to develop in many ways because they did not have anywhere near as much access to information. Education was limited in early times due to lack of information spread and lack of meaningful knowledge to be educated about. The printing press changed this of course and the Internet was simply a whole other level of information spread. Each of these changed society quite a lot and made individual intellectual development far easier. It's obvious that modern automation is capable of producing laziness in some situations and even the internet in some cases can reduce productivity and growth, but you treat this is an inevitable fact and just assume it is an un-fixable issue based on the current status quo. As if a change of environment is unable to encourage productivity and personal growth. I guarantee you our modern capitalist environment is nowhere close to really encouraging personal growth and psychological health, although if you want to actually make a case for capitalism's promotion of that feel free to go right on ahead.

You still haven't contested my evidence that intrinsic motivation is undermined by external rewards and punishments. All you are saying is that Nature has punishments and rewards in some ways and from there you conclude that an incentive based system like Capitalism is a good one. Appealing to nature isn't really showing much as nature has many obvious flaws. Just because those 'natural incentives' existed in earlier states of evolution does not mean they were conducive to psychological health.

The research for motivation is not just old but you are simply dismissing it out of hand. Try reading the Alfie Kohn article i linked earlier or some of his referenced studies. There's plenty of evidence and these discoveries about motivation are also consistent with psychology overall which has generally acknowledged them as true.

[whitewilly]

Blah, effectively, human/“intelligence” is just a survival strategy. That is, a method of acquiring energy for structuring the growth of an organization of cells... the greater/higher the level of intelligence, as defined by both breathe of knowledge about the external reality and the temporal domain of reality (history for perspective and future for planning to be where the energy will be, or even better planting the future so energy will be there when and where we want it) is just the extension of that strategy of acquiring energy, nutrients, etc.

Due to climate variability, we acquired adaptability as a trait for species survival... A BIG thank you to that massive Yucatán asteroid for wiping out the dinosaurs that forced only the animals with adaptability to survive through 4-7yrs of dark sky “asteroid fallout” winter. Otherwise we’d be being eaten for snacks by T-Rex and his little cousins like Raptors, they were better evolved for energy acquisition than mammals, mammals had to outsmart them to survive at night when it was colder then they liked it... the little warm blooded mammals could live in caves and scurry out at night to gather food stuff. Guess who got lucky when it got too cold for the massive dinosaurs to breed and when all the plentiful food disappeared after two cold winters across the planet?

66 million years ago, mammals got a lucky break to takeover the world... the value of intelligence got upgraded from “energy seeker” predator models to “energy seeking “predator/future planner (farmers, builders, etc) models.

Again:

https://bit.ly/2w9ASgx

To summarize, intrinsic motivation IS external rewards (ENERGY). Homeodynamic “stasis” is a feedback loop of energy and information...We are energy seeker just like every living thing. We enjoy eating, so I guess we are just bacteria looking for a good meal . How do I cook this stuff, it’s like a white thing and sorta smells like dirty socks? Hmm mushrooms are edible right? The problem is that several levels of knowledge have to be understood before the problem can be understood, and then the “why” has to be understood or the problem will just show back up in another form....

[Aron]

@whitewilly

Blah, effectively, human/“intelligence” is just a survival strategy. That is, a method of acquiring energy for structuring the growth of an organization of cells... the greater/higher the level of intelligence, as defined by both breathe of knowledge about the external reality and the temporal domain of reality (history for perspective and future for planning to be where the energy will be, or even better planting the future so energy will be there when and where we want it) is just the extension of that strategy of acquiring energy, nutrients, etc.

Due to climate variability, we acquired adaptability as a trait for species survival... A BIG thank you to that massive Yucatán asteroid for wiping out the dinosaurs that forced only the animals with adaptability to survive through 4-7yrs of dark sky “asteroid fallout” winter. Otherwise we’d be being eaten for snacks by T-Rex and his little cousins like Raptors, they were better evolved for energy acquisition than mammals, mammals had to outsmart them to survive at night when it was colder then they liked it... the little warm blooded mammals could live in caves and scurry out at night to gather food stuff. Guess who got lucky when it got too cold for the massive dinosaurs to breed and when all the plentiful food disappeared after two cold winters across the planet?

66 million years ago, mammals got a lucky break to takeover the world... the value of intelligence got upgraded from “energy seeker” predator models to “energy seeking “predator/future planner (farmers, builders, etc) models.

Again:

https://bit.ly/2w9ASgx

To summarize, intrinsic motivation IS external rewards (ENERGY). Homeodynamic “stasis” is a feedback loop of energy and information...We are energy seeker just like every living thing. We enjoy eating, so I guess we are just bacteria looking for a good meal . How do I cook this stuff, it’s like a white thing and sorta smells like dirty socks? Hmm mushrooms are edible right? The problem is that several levels of knowledge have to be understood before the problem can be understood, and then the “why” has to be understood or the problem will just show back up in another form....

You just completely equated natural incentives with artificial ones. They're not the same, artificial incentive manipulation schemes are designed to control people and obviously have different psychological effects. Also natural incentives can easily have negative effects as well, just because people have motivation to deal with these natural issues does not mean you can use an appeal to nature fallacy to justify an incentive based system as effective. Survival is important but it is not all that matters. Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, survival is just a prerequisite for several more layers of psychological health.

You are rejecting all evidence against a behaviorist model for education or work, the evidence shows incentive manipulation does not work and has poor results. You just say that since you reject the idea of intrinsic motivation that evidence doesn't exist anymore, which is simply bias at work. I'll relink the alfie kohn site as you didn't seem to read anything i linked or look at any of the referenced evidence.
https://www.alfiekohn.org/article/risks-rewards/

If you would set some goal posts for what level of evidence would indicate to you the possibility that punishments and rewards are not effective at promoting psychological health or motivation, that'd help move the discussion along. As for me if you could show that removing incentive/punishment manipulatory systems actually has a negative effect on skill for complicated intellectual tasks that would be a nice place to start. Or showing a comparison of incentive system used to get a good result on intellectual task, vs not using manipulatory strategies, and the manipulatory strategies getting better results on the task. Showing them to be long term would be important too since there's a good psychological argument that the motivating effect of rewards diminishes over time. Also, showing that incentive programs for let's say education, retain the beneficial effects after you remove the incentives, and do not just produce a negative effect on motivation for the thing the incentive is supposed to encourage after incentives are removed. If on the other hand the motivation goes away as you take away the incentives, while motivation was higher before they were introduced, it's evidence in favor of my view. You can't just blindly reject all evidence like you're doing now just because it doesn't fit your views, that's dogmatic. But it seems to be what you continue to do repeatedly here as i make these points and you brush them aside ignoring them.

Also seems like you have zero interest in arguing for the actual effectiveness of capitalism in practice at good social effects. That would be an important point if you want to prove capitalism works. Right now you're still just handwaving, unfortunately.

[whitewilly]

Blah, I don't need to look up anything. There's not a single idea mentioned here that I'm not MORE familiar with. The fact is you have a lot of weird/bad ideas within a tiny framework that has to be disassembled piece-by-piece and put together right. You talk about punishment and rewards within a lab/school setting and then try to expend that the real world? LOL. This is really too low level for me to get into.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ ... scientists

Here are some books you need to read to understand how the system really works

https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Mass-Ins ... 0865716692

https://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Cur ... 865718547/

In the real world an incentive base system works e.g. you don't die, you get to bang hotter chicks, work less, see more, etc. This may be hard to understand by someone on the autism spectrum. And again, I'm not interesting in having a serious discussion on this website. I use https://bit.ly/2NjPcKM for that.

[Moretorque]

Socialism works great for our rulers, they just bail themselves out and bury us in debt as they rearrange society as they see fit.

I have come too the conclusion it was created as the biggest con ever. Socialism kinda works on a women's level of thinking so they get them involved but then they create all these jobs that serve no purpose to get them into the main stream of work so they aren't near as reliant on the need for a regular man too split the family up and it has resulted in the total miss allocation of resources in an efficient manner and a complete wasteful boondoggle.

The whole system is getting completely stopped up from all the unnecessary pieces the A$$hole socialist have created!

[Aron]

@whitewilly

Blah, I don't need to look up anything. There's not a single idea mentioned here that I'm not MORE familiar with. The fact is you have a lot of weird/bad ideas within a tiny framework that has to be disassembled piece-by-piece and put together right. You talk about punishment and rewards within a lab/school setting and then try to expend that the real world? LOL. This is really too low level for me to get into.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ ... scientists

There's also evidence in work settings that incentive structures do not work and are less effective. But I guess you will probably ignore that evidence too. Nice article, it shows that rote instruction and memorization don't work which is the same thing plenty of people against traditional education structures like Alfie Kohn and others have been arguing for years. It's nice if you agree with that conclusion but it doesn't help your case for incentives here.

Here are some books you need to read to understand how the system really works

https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Mass-Ins ... 0865716692

https://www.amazon.com/Dumbing-Down-Cur ... 865718547/

In the real world an incentive base system works e.g. you don't die, you get to bang hotter chicks, work less, see more, etc. This may be hard to understand by someone on the autism spectrum. And again, I'm not interesting in having a serious discussion on this website. I use https://bit.ly/2NjPcKM for that.

I've already heard of John Taylor Gatto, many of his conclusions against compulsory education are pretty similar to others like Aflie Kohn and support the general idea that extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic. I've read quite a few of his articles on his website although i haven't gotten to his books yet. Those books seem great and I'll probably get around to reading them but I don't think they support your conclusions on incentives. It's good to know if you happen to agree with his stance against compulsory schooling, but that just makes me wonder more why you still are in support of incentive manipulation in other areas.

On a broad level really-existing capitalism simply does not work. Even in the developed countries great numbers of people live paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/29/heres-h ... check.html
And of course, there is no need to go over how many people live in absolute poverty and often just starve in the world today, whom society has no real incentive to help in an effective way under capitalism. Capitalism as a system has no structural incentive for improvement, the goal in capitalism for corporations is to maintain Cyclical Consumption of goods so profit can be maintained regardless of social or environmental cost, not to resolve public needs. Please do respond to this point as it is key and you brush these issues aside without real comment when they are intrinsic to capitalism and unavoidably create many huge social issues.

And now you are resorting to ad hominem attack. The probability of you thinking even a little about any evidence I raise seems to be diminishing very rapidly, which is unfortunate since if you did actually examine enough of the arguments i'm making you might realize some core irresolvable flaws in our economic system today.

I'm guessing you will assume i have no evidence unless I directly cite something proving work incentives to fail so i'll just get right to that. There's plenty more proof of this. Here's an article on incentive programs in the workplace failing since you thought these ideas could not translate into work situations:

https://hbr.org/1993/09/why-incentive-plans-cannot-work

Another analysis took advantage of an unusual situation that affected a group of welders at a Midwestern manufacturing company. At the request of the union, an incentive system that had been in effect for some years was abruptly eliminated. Now, if a financial incentive supplies motivation, its absence should drive down production. And that is exactly what happened, at first. Fortunately, Harold F. Rothe, former personnel manager and corporate staff assistant at the Beloit Corporation, tracked production over a period of months, providing the sort of long-term data rarely collected in this field. After the initial slump, Rothe found that in the absence of incentives the welders’ production quickly began to rise and eventually reached a level as high or higher than it had been before.

As the data shows, here incentive programs run counter to motivation and their removal causes improvement in performance even for low level tasks like welding, I predict the improvement would be larger for intellectual tasks since other research has shown they are more negatively affected by the introduction of rewards, even in the short term, while people doing low level tasks can be pushed in the short term to work harder by a reward.

And again, I'm not interesting in having a serious discussion on this website. I use https://bit.ly/2NjPcKM for that.

That's too bad. It makes it pretty unproductive for me if you refuse to examine evidence contrary to your views, other than to convince anyone else reading that you aren't looking at the whole picture. If all you're going to do is just proclaim your own opinion and not think about anyone else's you might as well not be having a conversation to begin with. Makes it a waste of time.