In an ideal world we have ______

[Celldweller]

That's good because in an ideal world, people from Phoenix wouldn't come anywhere near Canada.

Now wait just another damn minute here!...!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Low rise does NOT equate to 'human scale'

Yeah, it actually does. Nobody should have to work or live in a building that they can't leave quickly in case of fire, or can't reach all floors of during the increasingly frequent power outages, or can't open a window to get fresh air. Also, low-rise doesn't block the sun from inner cities, and doesn't fall on quite so many people in earthquakes and explosions. Bonus: the foundation is a lot cheaper and there aren't multiple basements in which people can be trapped. Or mugged.
Nobody should live so far from their work, services and necessities that they can't get there on foot, wheelchair, roller-skate, or bicycle. Rickshaws okay for emergency transport; carriages for the under-threes.

Just because you want to live a simple life doesn't mean humanity can. You're describing the certain and fairly rapid failure of the human race.

"Human scale" = dead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, but I live off of around 1000 dollars/month as is and I'm pretty content. I'd imagine those who are making obscene amounts of money and living lives of luxury beyond 99% of the world's wildest dreams could do with a little less than they have now.

The biggest poison that's sprung from capitalism is rampant materialism. I don't give a fuck if you think you need a yacht, you don't, this guy on the corner needs lunch.

We're faced with a situation where we know people are self-interested and only look out for themselves, therefore, unless we put regulations in place that make our energies work for the collective good everything goes to shit and we all die knifing each other over the last orange at the super market.

In the real world you have to consider how they will react.

Tax away the riches and they're not going to spend the time at it in the first place. You recognize that self-interest drives them--understand that that means you have to give them a benefit from the work.

 

[Petrel]

Dream on. That's nowhere near enough light. ....

If you live someplace where the lost water is a big deal you don't have enough water for agriculture, either.

The sun even shines on Detroit. And water shouldn't be wasted anywhere.... but, never mind.
Of course none of this can ever be done.
Except the bits that already are being done.
And the other bits that will have to be done when the current state of affairs ends - for whatever nobody-could-have-foreseen reason.

 

[dystopian]

You don't need to start with heritage sites. Start with office buildings that contain people only 8 hours a day, who do nothing but move money around. Most of those building wouldn't be too difficult to make more efficient and cleaner. Then replace the tenements with decent housing - I guarantee, there are no heritage slums, so that'll keep us busy for a while. Then insulate the apartment buildings and homes, put in water reclamation plants and other energy-saving innovations. Then we'll see about the cathedrals and museums.

You're still mass-evicting people; that's not going to be acceptable to very many people. Not to mention impossible; where's the government going to get the money to buy out all the owners?

Yeah, it actually does.

No, it really doesn't. You just don't like them.

Nobody should have to work or live in a building that they can't leave quickly in case of fire,

What are you even talking about? That isn't a problem with high-rises; that's a problem with *specific* highrises.

or can't reach all floors of during the increasingly frequent power outages,

Power outages are increasingly *less* frequent, not more.

or can't open a window to get fresh air.

I could do without that just fine, thanks. Don't go deciding that the conditions I find perfectly pleasant and acceptable aren't 'human scale'.

Also, low-rise doesn't block the sun from inner cities,

Neither does high-rise unless you're just building a massive wall of them.

and doesn't fall on quite so many people in earthquakes and explosions.

We're perfectly capable of building highrises that don't topple in earthquakes and explosions; don't blame highrises as a whole for corner-cutting designs.

Besides, earthquakes and explosions don't even happen in most urban areas.

Bonus: the foundation is a lot cheaper and there aren't multiple basements in which people can be trapped. Or mugged.

Yes, and you're also wasting a LOT more land; which you may think is a perfectly acceptable tradeoff, but the only reason you think that is because you live in a country with a paltry population density of 3.5 per square kilometer instead of 450+.

Nobody should live so far from their work, services and necessities that they can't get there on foot, wheelchair, roller-skate, or bicycle.

Except by getting rid of highrises you are in fact INCREASING the distance.

But that would be your ideal world. I only mentioned mine.

No, that'd objectively be a more ideal world. It isn't a matter of opinion since there's only so much available land for development. Either you produce compact cities (and that will necessarily involve highrises to some extent); or you sprawl across the face of the earth, destroying even more nature and farmland than we already do.

You are free to add something original to the thread, rather than just criticizing other's ideas.

Don't throw ideas out there if you can't take them being criticized.

 

[dystopian]

In my ideal world, we would...

• Have colonized the solar system and beyond.
• Through colonization and AI-driven resource distribution, have created a post-scarcity society that has eliminated the need for conventional economics.
• Have technologically driven immortality along with the ability and freedom to custom-tailor our own biology however we want.

I was born too soon :/

 

[rousseau]

We're faced with a situation where we know people are self-interested and only look out for themselves, therefore, unless we put regulations in place that make our energies work for the collective good everything goes to shit and we all die knifing each other over the last orange at the super market.

In the real world you have to consider how they will react.

Tax away the riches and they're not going to spend the time at it in the first place. You recognize that self-interest drives them--understand that that means you have to give them a benefit from the work.

I'm not suggesting we don't have rich people or capitalistic incentive, just that we do a better job of distributing surplus.

 

[ksen]

So you admit you want to tear down the rich.

lol, you make it sound like there were no rich people when the highest marginal rates were in the 70%-90% range.

- - - Updated - - -

We're faced with a situation where we know people are self-interested and only look out for themselves, therefore, unless we put regulations in place that make our energies work for the collective good everything goes to shit and we all die knifing each other over the last orange at the super market.

In the real world you have to consider how they will react.

No you don't.

Tax away the riches and they're not going to spend the time at it in the first place. You recognize that self-interest drives them--understand that that means you have to give them a benefit from the work.

Who cares? In fact it'll probably be good for the world if a few less psychopaths are able to get filthy, stinking rich.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dream on. That's nowhere near enough light. ....

If you live someplace where the lost water is a big deal you don't have enough water for agriculture, either.

The sun even shines on Detroit. And water shouldn't be wasted anywhere.... but, never mind.
Of course none of this can ever be done.
Except the bits that already are being done.
And the other bits that will have to be done when the current state of affairs ends - for whatever nobody-could-have-foreseen reason.

Sure, vertical gardens can be made. They don't magically make more light, though. Most crop-type plants are adapted for full sun and their yields drop when they don't get it.

Your problem is that you're not willing to put numbers to it and see what happens.

- - - Updated - - -

In the real world you have to consider how they will react.

Tax away the riches and they're not going to spend the time at it in the first place. You recognize that self-interest drives them--understand that that means you have to give them a benefit from the work.

I'm not suggesting we don't have rich people or capitalistic incentive, just that we do a better job of distributing surplus.

A highly progressive tax system is about eating the rich.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

lol, you make it sound like there were no rich people when the highest marginal rates were in the 70%-90% range.

We have never had such a system. While we had a top marginal rate of 91% at one point it was full of loopholes.

We're faced with a situation where we know people are self-interested and only look out for themselves, therefore, unless we put regulations in place that make our energies work for the collective good everything goes to shit and we all die knifing each other over the last orange at the super market.

In the real world you have to consider how they will react.

No you don't.

You don't think people will change their behavior in response to changing incentives??

Tax away the riches and they're not going to spend the time at it in the first place. You recognize that self-interest drives them--understand that that means you have to give them a benefit from the work.

Who cares? In fact it'll probably be good for the world if a few less psychopaths are able to get filthy, stinking rich.

What you don't realize is that the way to getting rich in the business world is to do something better and pocket some of the excess. No rich means no innovation. The world stagnates.

 

[ksen]

We have never had such a system. While we had a top marginal rate of 91% at one point it was full of loopholes.

Way to contradict yourself. I wasn't talking about effective tax rates. I was talking about marginal rates and you agreed with me that they used to be as high as I said.

We're faced with a situation where we know people are self-interested and only look out for themselves, therefore, unless we put regulations in place that make our energies work for the collective good everything goes to shit and we all die knifing each other over the last orange at the super market.

In the real world you have to consider how they will react.

No you don't.

You don't think people will change their behavior in response to changing incentives??

You misunderstand me. I hope they do change their behavior and start to turn into decent human beings with a little bit of empathy.

Tax away the riches and they're not going to spend the time at it in the first place. You recognize that self-interest drives them--understand that that means you have to give them a benefit from the work.

Who cares? In fact it'll probably be good for the world if a few less psychopaths are able to get filthy, stinking rich.

What you don't realize is that the way to getting rich in the business world is to do something better and pocket some of the excess. No rich means no innovation. The world stagnates.

I don't know where you've been lately but that's not the way the ultra-rich make their money anymore.

 

[rousseau]

A highly progressive tax system is about eating the rich.

If you actually believe that you're making some really weird assumptions that I don't care to acknowledge.

 

[rousseau]

Goes off into the woods, finds one guy starving and another guy eating from a buffet. Asks the guy eating from a buffet if he can spare a chicken wing.

*why do you gotta tear me down like that man??*

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Way to contradict yourself. I wasn't talking about effective tax rates. I was talking about marginal rates and you agreed with me that they used to be as high as I said.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm pointing out that the number is meaningless. We don't know what the true top tax rate was because back then the loopholes let you keep a lot of money from showing up as income in the first place.

You misunderstand me. I hope they do change their behavior and start to turn into decent human beings with a little bit of empathy.

The change in behavior would be ceasing to spend money on innovation.

I don't know where you've been lately but that's not the way the ultra-rich make their money anymore.

It's always how they've made their money. Look over the Forbes list--you'll find it's almost all people who made a mint building something, or else their family members who inherited that. I'm only aware of one name on the list that made their money by investing.

- - - Updated - - -

Goes off into the woods, finds one guy starving and another guy eating from a buffet. Asks the guy eating from a buffet if he can spare a chicken wing.

*why do you gotta tear me down like that man??*

A chicken wing isn't 91%.

 

[rousseau]

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm pointing out that the number is meaningless. We don't know what the true top tax rate was because back then the loopholes let you keep a lot of money from showing up as income in the first place.

You misunderstand me. I hope they do change their behavior and start to turn into decent human beings with a little bit of empathy.

The change in behavior would be ceasing to spend money on innovation.

I don't know where you've been lately but that's not the way the ultra-rich make their money anymore.

It's always how they've made their money. Look over the Forbes list--you'll find it's almost all people who made a mint building something, or else their family members who inherited that. I'm only aware of one name on the list that made their money by investing.

- - - Updated - - -

Goes off into the woods, finds one guy starving and another guy eating from a buffet. Asks the guy eating from a buffet if he can spare a chicken wing.

*why do you gotta tear me down like that man??*

A chicken wing isn't 91%.

A progressive tax system doesn't have to tax rich people at 91%. I would presume that a progressive tax system would look out for the best interests of all parties, and a bare minimum for the disenfranchised.

 

[Blahface]

In an ideal world, we'd be more organized towards debate and critical thinking. We'd also have a voting system that allows us to hold politicians accountable and vote for the candidates we like without being penalized for it.

Everyone should belong to an assembly of maybe 30 members. During an election cycle, it would be required for EVERYONE to attend their assembly two times for about an hour and a half. In this assembly, members would have discussions and debates among themselves. After the second assembly, they'd vote. If they don't want to vote, they'd be able to mark a check box that says “invalidate this ballot.”

Members of each assembly would not be static. After two years, the assemblies would be reshuffled and reorganized into a new array of people. Also, during each two year period, there would be a public message board for assembly members in which they can make posts anonymously with a pseudonym.

Voting wouldn't happen all in one day. It would take about a week or longer - depending on spaces available for organizing each assembly.

 

[Petrel]

In my ideal world, we would...

• Have colonized the solar system and beyond.
• Through colonization and AI-driven resource distribution, have created a post-scarcity society that has eliminated the need for conventional economics.
• Have technologically driven immortality along with the ability and freedom to custom-tailor our own biology however we want.

Was that so hard?
I won't tell you what's impractical, inaccurate or wrong about your ideal world, nor second-guess what you don't like in this one.
And that's not so hard, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A progressive tax system doesn't have to tax rich people at 91%. I would presume that a progressive tax system would look out for the best interests of all parties, and a bare minimum for the disenfranchised.

My problem isn't with progressive. Tax systems should be progressive.

My problem is with highly progressive.

 

[Emily Lake]

Stop all luxury foods trade immediately, like coffee and tea.

You blasphemer! How dare you threaten my tea! Where is my pitchfork?

More seriously... There's a lot here that I disagree with, but I don't really want to get into a pissing match of that sort. Instead I'll just give my druthers.

In an ideal world we would have...

• An education system that allows every child to have an equitable opportunity to learn to the best of their ability
• An economic system that maximizes agency for workers while also preserving autonomy for businesses
• Efficient distribution of staple goods including foods, medicines, and housing
• Minimal need for social safety nets, because so few people would be in need

 

[dystopian]

In my ideal world, we would...

• Have colonized the solar system and beyond.
• Through colonization and AI-driven resource distribution, have created a post-scarcity society that has eliminated the need for conventional economics.
• Have technologically driven immortality along with the ability and freedom to custom-tailor our own biology however we want.

Was that so hard?
I won't tell you what's impractical, inaccurate or wrong about your ideal world, nor second-guess what you don't like in this one.
And that's not so hard, either.

You're welcome to, actually. Other people have tried doing so in the past, coming up with basic objections as if they think those haven't already been thought of and addressed by myself or people much smarter than me, or setting up strawman arguments based on predictable assumptions about what I'm talking about which don't stand up; those arguments quickly tend to crumble. As much as I dislike people bringing up the same tired old refutable arguments over and over though, I sure won't shut down discussion a priori: we never got anywhere by expressing our wishes for the future and then shutting the fuck up because we don't want others to actually look critically at those wishes.

I'd rather you disagree (because you genuinely disagree) with my posts and explain your reasons and give me your arguments, than have you make passive aggressive comments that don't foster any discussion, and do nothing but waste space and slightly annoy people.