12345...10...


Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems. There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities. Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read more:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Resource Based Economy | The Economic Truth

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing ones job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money troubles you, consider this: if a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air, and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource, nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Are we ready to start up a resource based economy?

Can we convince everyone to start a resource based economy?

We believe that a resource based economy can be an amazing change for humanity, but can we convince everyone that we can have a society without the want to become rich or motivated?

We guess as with other systems we talk about its not for everyone. You have to be a highly aware human in order to live in a resource based economy as it is created for you to be your very best and to live a life of full human expression.

A resource based economy sees what is best for humanity and takes that direction. It is very opposite to todays system where corporate interest and profit chooses the road that humanity takes together.

Will a resource based economy have to be implemented with force? NO!! You have to start in the small and what we believe is that every idea has to elevate people its way. So lets start a resourced based economy and then let those who want to live in it do so! A real revolution gives people options, that is why we propose as many solutions as possible as people are different and should be able to choose their destiny without socially engineering them towards your solution!

Learn more

To learn more go to this website!

Do you like the resource based economy? Well its time to meet and connect with others that love this great economic concept: http://thevenusproject.com/ and http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

Learn more on the Venus project YouTube Channel:

Go here to see the original:

Resource Based Economy | The Economic Truth

More than 250 projects worth $5.1 billion launched in first two years of industrialisation plan – Astana Times

ASTANA Kazakhstan launched 258 projects worth 1.7 trillion tenge (US$5.1 billion) in the first two years of its second five-year industrialisation plan. The plan is meant to diversify the countrys economy and boost domestic production.

Photo credit: primeminister.kz

Kazakhstans First Vice Minister of Investments and Development Alik Aidarbayev reported on the countrys progress in its State Industrial and Innovative Development Programme for 2015-2019 during an Aug. 22 press conference.

In line with the industrialisation road map, we continue launching new ventures, creating and preserving jobs. We unveiled 258 projects worth 1.7 trillion tenge (US$5.1 billion) since the beginning of the second five-year plan in 2015. We created 21,000 jobs. Since the beginning of this year, 32 projects worth 489 billion tenge (US$1.47 billion) were commissioned, providing jobs to 3,900 people. Over the industrialisation years, [since 2010] 1,060 projects amounting to 5.1 trillion tenge (US$15.33 billion) were launched creating 100,000 jobs, said Aidarbayev.

One of the key goals of the programme, according to the vice minister, is the diversification of the predominantly resource-based Kazakh economy and the subsequent increase of the processing industrys share in the domestic market.

Our economy needs diversification and this programme has been working for several years now. The results are evident and every year we are witnessing the growth of the processing industry. It constitutes 12 percent of the current [gross domestic product] and 30 percent in the economy in general, added Aidarbayev.

A rapidly growing sector in the domestic economy, the processing industry also serves as a main driver of industrial growth, according to Aidarbayev.

Within seven months of 2017 the real growth in the processing industry was 6.3 percent, while production grew 5.3 percent. The volume of exports totalled $6.2 billion, which is 27.8 percent more than in the same period last year. This is due to the favourable conditions in international markets and expansion in new foreign markets. The amount of investments in the processing industry is estimated at 411 billion tenge (US$1.24 billion) in the first half of 2017, which shows a 2.7 percent increase compared to the same period last year, noted the vice minister.

The industrialisation programme allowed the country to produce 500 different commodities previously not produced domestically, including passenger and freight cars, electric locomotives, x-ray equipment and pharmaceutical products.

One hundred projects worth more than one trillion tenge (US$3 billion) are to be implemented by the end of this year.

Read the rest here:

More than 250 projects worth $5.1 billion launched in first two years of industrialisation plan – Astana Times

NITDA targets increase in ICT contribution to GDP – Guardian (blog)

The National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) is working to ensure that Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector increases its 12.6 per cent contributions to the nations Gross Dometic Product (GDP) this year.

NITDA, through its Office for ICT Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OIIE), is already grooming some technology startups that would aid the countrys match towards the enthronement of a knowledge economy.

According to the Director-General, NITDA, Dr. Isa Pantami, at the weekend, in Lagos, NITDA is unleashing digital economy potential to deepen GDP contribution by making ICT play a key role in all aspects of the economy.Pantami said NITDA is organising the StartUP Nigeria programme, the sixth edition, where a number of startups pitched their ideas and IT solutions to angel investors.

The tech Startups that pitched included Acounteer, TheFarmyard, BeatDrone, Six, Nicademia, Livekampus, Comestibles Nigeria, Novael, TapPay, SwiftCheckup and Middleman.com.ng, which is an ecommerce platform connecting buyers and sellers while providing other auxiliary services.

Pantami said, ICT is not only indispensable for developing new products and services but also for ensuring the survival of any business in the competitive world by providing ample opportunities for growth and profitability.

According to him, the Nigerian startup ecosystem, with proper regulations and support, has capacity to become the strong catalytic force for sustainable economic growth across nations.He said that NITDA has since commenced processes for proper regulation and development, crucial for supporting the startup and entrepreneurs ecosystem in the country.

The NITDAs interwoven roles are relevant for the country to achieve its purpose of creative transformation of knowledge and ideas into new products, processes, or services meeting market needs, which culminates in successful enterprises, Pantami said.

He stated that the competitiveness of any economy in the long term depends on innovation potential of the economy gained through entrepreneurship and effective technology transfer, especially now that revenue from the oil and gas industry is on downward trend.Pantami warned that Nigeria cannot remain an oil and gas-based resource based economy, as every projections show other countries are making a turn away from oil.

The NITDA DG said, StartUPNigeria held in Lagos is a prelude to GITEX 2017, as NITDA tends to select the best startups to represent the country. This is critical in helping even the regulatory aspects of the IT sector. We identify with startups that need our technical, financial supports to push their solutions forward.

We believe Lagos is home to innovative startups; thus, we intend to assist them improve on their works. The truth is this: our country relies solely on oil and gas sector; in UK for instance by 2040 they intend to ban diesel or petrol cars, so our reliance on oil is disturbing.

We have to move from oil resource to knowledge-based economy. ICT has the answer to this. The contribution of 12.6 per cent of ICT to GDP is second to oil at the moment, but will soon takeover. India depends on ICT as $143 billion annual comes from ICT; Nigeria accounts for 180 million with 60 per cent young people who are addicted to ICT.

The DG explained that the winners from StartUp Nigeria programme, being held across the country, would later represent Nigeria at this years Gulf Technology Exhibition (GITEX) in Dubai to pitch their innovative ideas to global investment community.

Earlier, Acting National Coordinator of OIIE, Dr. Amina Sambo Magaji, thanked the exemplary leadership of the NITDA DG and the management for giving OIIE platform to meet with startups and solve needs in the ecosystem.

She said that OIIEs vision to drive ICT innovation and entrepreneurship through policies, initiatives, partnership and programs implementation by focusing on socio- economic impact, competitiveness, and sustainable & inclusive growth, was carefully crafted to ensure the startups are impacted positively.

She said the Office is not relenting on its focus, amongst others, on innovation and entrepreneurship by fostering a more innovative digital economy through turning new ideas and inventions into products and technologies that spur job growth and competitiveness while promoting economic development.

21 Jul Telecoms

4 Aug Technology

8 Aug Technology

16 Aug Telecoms

17 Aug Telecoms

2 days ago Telecoms

Read the original here:

NITDA targets increase in ICT contribution to GDP – Guardian (blog)

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community – HuffPost

I started my professional career in the federal government, in the U.S. EPA. I was proud of our work in Washington and proud of our country. In the years since, I always thought our national government was capable of doing better, but mostly considered its dysfunction to be the result of conflicting interests and the role of money in politics and the media. I looked elsewhere for progress and found it everywhere. Then came President Trump: For most of the past seven months Ive found the federal government disheartening and threatening, but unsurprising. Last week all of that was replaced with shame. I was deeply ashamed of the behavior of Donald Trump as he made excuses for the racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and sexist fiends marching in Virginia. It was the worst behavior I have ever seen from an American president. The president is our head of state and our head of government. He is both king and prime minister. As the head of state, his job is to represent the American people and their values. Last week he failed in performing that function; he abdicated his position as head of state.

What do the rest of us do in the face of this onslaught? He is the duly elected president, and although how long he remains in office is difficult to predict, his legitimacy as president is real. Last week we saw a little bit of what we do. Corporate leaders ran away from his advisory councils and even Republican elected leaders took him on. There will be more of this to come because Donald Trumps greatest talent is calling attention to himself. He will do whatever it takes to get noticed and most of us cannot help but watch what he is doing. However, I am coming to the conclusion that our energies would be better spent elsewhere. The federal government is too important to ignore, and so we need to continue to stay engaged, but a higher proportion of our effort should be devoted to our communities, businesses, institutions, cities and states.

The school year will soon begin and millions of American children will return to classrooms. Teachers will engage with students, coaches will inspire kids, and parents will cheer from the sidelines. Our hospitals will heal the sick with technology that continues to progress, smartphones will provide us with even more distractions than they do today, and new technology will help move us toward a renewable resource-based economy. In my home city, teenagers will help a mom carry her babys stroller up the subway stairs, someone will carry groceries to an apartment for an elderly neighbor, and people will see something and say something. We will try to keep each other safe and secure in a world that really is better than the media wants us to believe.

It also means that we need to stop waiting for the federal government to come to our rescue and fund the aging infrastructure that is crumbling in our communities. We will need to generate our own revenues to maintain subways, build bridges and tunnels, repave roads, build water and waste systems, modernize our electric grid, and expand air and seaports. This will require taxes, user fees, and public-private partnerships. Investing in the future means that we defer some gratification today so our children can benefit in the future. Extreme income inequality will not be addressed by the federal tax code and so whatever adjustments can be made will take place by the market and by state and local actions.

The absence of a federal government will make it more difficult for poorer states to invest in the future, unless they can develop a strategy that attracts capital and wealth from the outside. Here in New York City, we have the wealth needed to invest, but are suffering from political posturing and preening by our mayor and governor. Our need for a well-maintained subway system is now being held hostage to their national political ambitions. But despite their dispute, New Yorkers have the ability to generate the funds we need and our attention should be focused on crafting a deal that allows our mass transit system to be maintained and expanded.

While racists may march with torches in Virginia, we see the new multi-racial, multi-national America taking shape on our sidewalks, in our school yards, in social gatherings, and in all of our public spaces. Despite the efforts to turn back the clock to an imaginary America, our demography and mass social change have made this entire nation the gorgeous mosaic that my colleague Professor David Dinkins called New York City a quarter century ago. Most people have friends from different parts of the world and of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Most of our family stories are immigration stories. All four of my grandparents were immigrants. The global economy and world wide web have led to increased global travel and immigration. As a nation that still has a history of welcoming immigrants, America has become more diverse over the past half century. According to DVera Cohn and Andrea Caumont of the Pew Research Center:

Americans are more racially and ethnically diverse than in the past, and the U.S. is projected to be even more diverse in the coming decades. By 2055, the U.S. will not have a single racial or ethnic majority. Much of this change has been (and will be) driven by immigration. Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S. in the past 50 years, mostly from Latin America and Asia. Today, a near-record 14% of the countrys population is foreign born compared with just 5% in 1965. Over the next five decades, the majority of U.S. population growth is projected to be linked to new Asian and Hispanic immigration. American attitudes about immigration and diversity are supportive of these changes for the most part. More Americans say immigrants strengthen the country than say they burden it, and most say the U.S.s increasing ethnic diversity makes it a better place to live.

The demonstrators in Virginia were seeking to resist this emerging reality and prevent this change from occurring, but most Americans and most communities embrace diversity. Immigration presents challenges, but American communities have always been built by people from different places coming together, finding common values and sharing the ideas, beliefs, food and customs they brought from their former home. Mayor Dinkins image of the gorgeous mosaic is appropriate here. Close up, each tile in the mosaic is distinct and identifiable, but when you step back and see how the tiles fit together you see a beautiful picture that has its own grace and logic. That is the American community that most of us see every day. It may not be visible from the penthouse of Trump Tower or the ballroom of Mar-a-Lago, but it is both the American dream and, for the most part, the American reality.

The recent effort to focus immigration on highly skilled workers misses the point. Yes, we want scientists and engineers from other nations. But we also want ambition, drive, daring and leadership. My grandfather, Ben Cohen, was a baker and a carpenter. He was not well-educated. But all five of his children turned out to be successful professionals. Wed like more Albert Einsteins but we need more Ben Cohens. In the coming decades, this nation can maintain its dynamism, as it has in the past, by being the last best hope of humanity. By being a gathering place for those yearning to be free. That was not the spirit of those carrying torches and chanting disgusting slogans, but it is the American spirit at its best. Despite the chaos that has enveloped the White House, we can take comfort in the day-to-day functioning of our American communities.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day’s most important news.

See the original post here:

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community – HuffPost

5 candidates to watch in the as-yet undeclared BC Liberal leadership race – Straight.com

Nobody has officially declared that they’re running for the leadership of the B.C. Liberal party.

But privately, party members are telling me that four MLAs and one MP are preparing campaigns to replace Christy Clark, who stepped down earlier this month.

There’s no obvious frontrunner, which will make this contest more fun to watch from the sidelines.And there’s no indication yet that the interim leader, Rich Coleman, or the former finance minister, Mike de Jong, are going to seek the top job.

Here are the possible contenders in alphabetical order, along with their strengths and weaknesses:

The former education minister is best known in Vancouver for firing the local school board and for trying to force the district to sell the Kingsgate Mall. It’s not going to serve him well in B.C.’s largest city, but it might win him some support in other areas of the province.

First elected in 2013, Bernier was previously a two-term mayor of Dawson Creek and a one-term city councillor. According to his biography, he worked for 20 years in the natural gas industry.

Strengths: A folksy public speaker, Bernier would be popular in the 250 area code of mainland B.C. where there’s a large number of party members. He might come across to them as the most likable leadership candidate.

Weaknesses: The B.C. Liberal government’s record of funding education was pretty dismal in comparison to other provinces. Bernier’s government was also blown out of the Supreme Court of Canada for its approach to negotiating with teachers.As a former education minister, he will have to wear this if he leads his party into a general election.

Plus, he’s a huge supporter of the natural gas industry just as forest-fire-weary voters are becoming increasingly conscious about climate change. Many won’t buy claims anymore that natural gas is a bridge to a cleaner future, particularly if Andrew Weaver remains leader of the B.C. Greens.

The Straight was the first to mention in print the possibility of the former corporate lawyer and rookie MLA becoming the next B.C. Liberal leader. A long-time party member, Lee worked for former justice minister and prime minister Kim Campbell many years ago.

Lee is the antithesis of Clark with his low-key demeanour. He’s served on a bunch of nonprofit boards and chaired Peter Ladner’s first campaign for Vancouver city council. This makes him remarkably well-connected.

Strengths: He will appeal to centrist B.C. Liberals hoping for the party to perform better in Metro Vancouver. Lee is also not stained by the B.C. Liberal record and he would probably hold his own discussing various public policies during leadership debates.

Weaknesses: Lee doesn’t set the house on fire with his speeches. Party members might feel he’s too boring to defeat a happy warrior like Premier John Horgan.

Plus, his inexperience as an elected politician might lead the media to treat his candidacy less seriously than the others. And one of his biggest problems is that most party members live outside of the Lower Mainland.

The former high-tech executive was appointed transportation and infrastructure minister immediately after being elected as an MLA.And transportation policies in the Lower Mainland led directly to the downfall of the B.C. Liberal government.

But Stone still represents a new generation. He’s from a mid-size B.C. city that’s making a transition from a resource-based economy to one more reliant on other goods and services. Given the number of party members residing outside of the Lower Mainland, he’ll probably be among the frontrunners.

Strengths:Stone was born in 1972, which means he’ll likely be the youngest candidate in the race. He could be the preferred candidate of libertarian young tech workers, which are growing in number. He’s also articulate and he’ll look the best on TV, which counts for a lot in politics these days.

Weaknesses:Stone was the frontman on the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project, the plebiscite defeating much-needed transit and transportation improvements, and even the politically suicidal move to bring ride-sharing to the Lower Mainland by the end of this year.

While these policies might have all made sense to a guy who regularly drives the Coquihalla and is comfortable programming his smartphone, they alienated local mayors. Ride-sharing also ticks off South Asian voters in constituencies that swing back and forth between the NDP and B.C. Liberals. This record as transportation minister raises questions whether he has sufficient political intuition to become premier.

Watts is the former mayor of Surrey and likely has the highest name recognition of any of the potential candidates listed here. Since sidling up to Stephen Harper and becoming a Conservative MP, she’s fallen off the radar somewhat.

Her tenure as mayor was marked by massive public investments to turn Surrey City Centre into the region’s second major downtown. So far, the results have been mixed, though the growth of the SFU campus, the creation of a new KPU campus and new library, and the promotion of a high-tech zone called Innovation Boulevard will probably pay decent dividends over the long term.

Watts has a certain magnetism when she enters a room full of supporters. But it’s an open question whether she has sufficient public-policy depth or an understanding of the nuances of the province to defeat a politician as intelligent as Horgan. Watts’s campaign flyer about terrorism during the last federal election campaign might make some B.C. Liberals question her intellect.

Strengths: Watts will have a fully formed political machine geared up from day one of the campaign. She’ll be seen as a new face on the provincial scene. And she may be able to mobilize the politically influential South Asian community to come on-side with her because she wasn’t associated with the disastrous ride-sharing idea promoted so eagerly by Stone and former cabinet minister Peter Fassbender.

Weaknesses: Watts is a federal Conservative, which will alienate federal Liberals within the party, of which there are many. She’s not going to win over former B.C. Liberal voters who switched allegiance to the B.C. Greens because of Clark’s environmental record. And she’s not likely to help the party make a breakthrough on Vancouver Island, where the B.C. Liberals were nearly shut out this year.

The former minister of advanced education managed to avoid controversy even as the former finance minister, de Jong, was treating postsecondary institutions and students with a great deal of disdain. Wilkinson is a former corporate litigator with a medical degree, which makes him far more educated than his former party leader.

But will his upper-crust, downtown Vancouver sensibility be political poison in the 250 area code?

Strengths: If Wilkinson can keep his chippy side in check, he can be a strong debater. As leader, he has potential to raise lots of money. And he’s not tied to the federal Conservatives, unlike Watts. He’s also brighter than some of the others named above.

Weaknesses:It’s hard to see how Wilkinson, a Rhodes scholar, is going to appeal to blue-collar workers, who’ve become a key part of the B.C. Liberal base under Clark’s leadership. We’ve had boring premiers before and one of them, Bill Bennett, won three terms in office.

But in this modern age of social media and 24-hour news cycles, it’s hard to imagine someone with Wilkinson’s charisma deficit ever igniting passion among the masses. Plus, he hurt himself with environmentally inclined free enterprisers by thrashing the City of Vancouver’s efforts to make the city 100 percent reliant on renewable energy by 2050. It’s not smart if you want to appeal to younger urban voters.

Link:

5 candidates to watch in the as-yet undeclared BC Liberal leadership race – Straight.com

Will a Resource Based Economy Work?

There has been a longer discussion recently in this article whether a resource based economy will work or not. And the opposers argument was largely centered around a notion that in RBE there will be no contracts, that people can just walk away from their job, and that this will lead to a lack of mining ore. That we wont find people to work in the mines to dig up minerals needed for our social production as he calls it, to produce our cell phones and laptops, etc.

Of course, he does have a point. But not only in regards to mining ore, but in regards to the operation of the whole planet. I understand his concern as I have it myself. The complexity of the world we have today is extremely vast when it comes to the production of goods and services. Of course, mining of ore to extract minerals, is one of the aspects of this complexity. We have a huge production of different products that need everything from aluminum to plastics to glass to silicon to mention but a tiny percentage of the whole. And all of these minerals and raw materials are processed in a lot of different places and manufactured into a huge amount of different products. And this goes on on thousands of locations all over the planet.

All of the alternative solutions to the problems we have in the world today deal with solutionswithin the monetary system. We have recycling, carbon shares, cradle to cradle, environmental protection, and so forth. All of these deals with the industry and the monetary system staying as it is. Recycling means that we have to recycle the minerals and raw materials used in many of our products. Carbon shares is a monetary way for the society to be able to continue to pollute the environment, but it will cost a bit more for the polluter. Cradle to cradle means that industries produce everything with the termination and recycling of the product in mind, not using any harmful agents in the product. Environmental protection is the total of allmeasures taken in regards to protect the environment, but still within the monetary system.

All of these measures assumethat the monetary system, the industry, the free market and so forth stay largely as it is. With recycling, cradle to cradle and carbon shares thinking, we still think in terms ofcontinuousconsumption and unlimited economic growth.

It is understandable that the majority of people can not think in terms of changing the whole system, from the root and up, because it is very difficult to think that far out of the box.

We have all become used to our way of life, with tonnes and tonnes of different products inthousandsof different categories. And we all think that this has to go on. We all think that we need hundreds of different producers of cell phones, lap tops, cars, mattresses, guitars, etc. etc.

Yes, we, humans are an industrious race. We have ideas, we produce, we manufacture, we consume, and we do it all over again. This is who we are. Isnt it? Humans have proven to be full of ideas and ingenious solutions to many of the problems of being human. We are also very good at creating problems for ourselves, so that we can have yet more to solve. We constantly do this, and it seems to be human nature. And we all want to be free. Free to do what we want, travel where we want, think and say what we want, work with what we want and live wherever we want. Of course, this kind of freedom is limited to only a few in our world today.

My point and question is; How can/will a resource based economy work on a global scale, without it becoming a totalitarian system? For sure, none of us wants any global machinegovernment, even though that is what Jacque Fresco of The Venus Project proposes. We all wants to be able to make our owndecisions. So, how can it work, then? We are all so indoctrinated into thinking that if theres no penalty in terms of job loss, money loss, property loss and so forth, we cant get people to do what is needed in society.

We think that if everyone will be able to do whatever they want to do, then we will lack a whole lot of people to dig ore as our commenter puts it. No one will take on a dangerous job like going into the mines and dig out the urgently needed minerals to produce our cell phones, because when he/she gets everything he/she needs, he/she could simply walk away whenever he/she wants. Since there wouldnt be any binding contract (in terms of money/property/job loss) in a resource based economy, the whole of society would simply collaps.

Trust me, I truly, really and utterly understand this concern and this disbelief in a resource based economy.

The first time I heard about RBE, Iimmediatelygot a feeling that this is good, but at the same time, I couldnt get it to work in my intellectual analyzing mind. And thats why I started this blog. I felt strongly that RBE is possible, and not only possible, but the best alternative humanity has ever been able to choose. But I couldnt prove it. Because I too was totally indoctrinated in my mind in regards to thinking about money and property as givens. As something thats always been there, like air. It has taken me a couple of years to dedoctrinate myself into seeing how RBE can be possible.

So, back to our question. If we have no money or need for money, and everything is provided for everyone, what will make people work in the mines and do all the dirty work needed in our society? It is a very good question, and I am not sure that I can give a 100% answer to that. Because I dont know. I can only speculate and imagine, which I have done for a couple of years. And my answer goes like this:

Firstly, we have to think of RBE as a totally and utterly different society. We can not think of an RBE society with our monetary goggles. We have to take them off. We have to be able to imagine that the individuals on this planet can actually shift their way of thinking from a penalty based society to a freedom of contribution society where we do what we do because we want to contribute to society in meaningful ways. Many people think this way already and refuse to take jobs just to earn money but do what they do because of theirconviction in a different society. They have an inherent need to do something meaningful that truly contributes to this world.Thinking that there has to be a monetary penalty lurking in the background to get people to do what is really needed in society is seeing this with the old monetary goggles.

The truth is that the monetary reward is over rated in terms of production efficiency. There have numerous studies that support this. Take a look atDan PinksTED Talk about this phenomena and the animation made from it. What is shows is that higher incentives leads to worse performance. It sounds like a self contradictory statement, but when you think about it and see the background, it is not. And these results have been replicated over and over again bypsychiatrists, sociologists and economists. For simple, straight forward tasks, if you do this, then you get that, monetary incentives are great. But when a task gets more complicated, when it requires some more conceptual thinking, the monetary incentives dont work.

What the research continues to show is that money is a motivator only when it gets people to take on a job. After getting the job, there are other factors that leads to betterperformanceand personal satisfaction, and they are; Autonomy, mastery and purpose. Money only plays a part if the job doesnt pay good enough for people to make a living. As soon as people are paid enough, then these other factors are the important ones.

What this shows is that the true values within humans are not penalty centered, but rather centered around our previous notion of freedom of contribution. Autonomy is a vital value. People wants to feel that they have a freedom to choose what they do and how they do it. Mastery is an equally important value. To have enough education and experience to really feel that one masters and succeeds in resolving the tasks at hand. And last, but not least:purpose. We all have to feel a sense of purpose in what we do. It has to be meaningful. In other words, money, and the threat of a monetary penalty is not the reasons why people do stuff.

This shows to prove that people actually might be digging ore if there is a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose in the job.

Then we come to the point where we have to take off the monetary goggles and put on the RBE goggles instead. When we have this totally brand new world and way of thinking, there would be so many things that would be different. Since people doesnt have to take a job because of money anymore, what would people do? Why would they do anything? Well, the formersection should give the answer. People would seek meaningful and purposeful tasks. We would seek tasks where we feel a sense of autonomy and mastery. I think we also can add several reasons why people would do stuff that the mentioned research doesnt show. Likeexcitement, interest and fulfillment.

So, meaning, purpose, mastery, autonomy, excitement, interest and fulfillment are what really drives people, and what will drive people in a resource based economy.

Now, back to digging ore. If this activity brings any of the above mentioned elements, people will do it. But, when we have a resource based economy, where most people have waken up from the continuous consumption cycle and where most people wants to contribute to the betterment of society, things like digging ore will not be as needed as before. Why? Because of several things. With the new mindset of humanity, consumption will go drastically down. Not so much new minerals and raw materials has to be dug up. Production will go down too, as products will be made to last and instead of postponing the release of new technology to maximize profit, the newest technology can be released right away, thus saving millions of tonnes of raw material that other wise would have been used in the never ending new products. And lastly, technology that digs ore will be developed, minimizing the need for human personell way down in the mines.

To see how a resource based economy can work, we can divide it into 4 categories:

1. The human values has changed, or rather, has become acknowledged.

2. Technology has become more and more developed, removing the need for humans doing dangerous andrepetitivetasks.

3. As a result of RBE, society as a whole has changed drastically.

4. The notion of property and ownership has changed.

The most important first step for RBE to work is the human values. As we see, people are intrinsically motivated by other things than money, like a sense of purpose and meaning. It is only todays need for money that locks people into a mind prison thinking that money is what motivates them, when it really is not.

So this is about education and awakening. For RBE not to be a totalitarian, global, machine based government, which non of us want, people have to wake up one by one into the truth of their own motivation. We, as individuals have to train ourselves and each other into thinking of why we are here and what we really want to do, not in terms of money, but in terms of what we feel as our true purpose here on the planet.

I am training myself everyday to think this way. And the way I do it is to tell my self that every thing I do, I do of service to the planet and humanity, service to others, and service to my self. Service to my self in terms of what I want to do here on earth. And, I have already had theepiphanythat being of service to others can be extremely fulfilling for my self. Thus, doing what I do the very best way I can do it, is a fulfilling thing. And this has nothing to do with money. What is funny, though, is that since I started thinking like this, I have had more to do in my business than ever before, which of course brings in much more money than ever before as well.

Of course, we can say that money is a means of gratitude, a flow of appreciation, going from one person to another. I am not opposed to that way of thinking. Far from it. It is just that money and property and the whole management of the whole planet has been so thoroughly fucked up by the money logic, that trying to think of a world totally without money and property would do us all very good. It certainly does me good. And I realize that as soon as I start to think in terms of money, Iimmediatelyget that old stressful feeling again. It is me not thinking about money but at my purpose of being of service that brings the money in! Because when I think that I dont need money, I become relaxed, and the law of attraction works in my favor.

And then, my friends, what would be the logicalconsequenceof this? Well, if all of us started thinking of our purpose, rather than money, and doing things out of purpose rather than money.we wouldnt need any money! When our purpose is to be of service, to give and share, then everyone will always have enough of everything ever needed.And low and behold, we would actually live purpose- and meaningful lives. Every one of us. No need to stress for more money, paying bills, pay taxes, take up loans, do accounting, pay insurance, and what have you.

For a resource based economy to work, more and more people on the planet have to wake up to this reality. It is a human choice that we have to do as individuals. There are already a whole lot of volunteers around the world working for non-profit volunteer organizations. So the notion is not new. The question is whether it will spread to the rest of society as well. But that a whole world could work for free for each other should be totally possible. At least when enough (critical mass) people realize the benefits of doing this, rather than toiling with money and all that it entails.

When the new value system is in place, when enough people realize the above mentioned, both people who now are in normal jobs, but also those who are in politics and those who run large corporations, the abandonment of money will be a reality. Then, with the profit motive gone, technology can be developed without the hindrances that patents and greed used to be for unlimited development.

When we can concentrate on developing the best technology for everyone in every circumstance, and we can truly let technology replace 99% of todays jobs. Jobs that now are kept open, since replacing them with technology would bedevastatingfor the economy. Today, millions of people still work in factories doning work that easily could have been replaced by machines, robots and technology. There are already a whole lot of machines and technology in place, but again and again, I see people closing the lid on cardboard boxes and other meaninglessrepetitivetasks easily replaceable by technology.

And back to the ore digging metaphor. I am pretty sure that this field is also one where technology and machines could do much more work then it does today, replacing the need for human personell in mines. Besides, when we truly make products to last, and human values have changed, we wont consume as much, and we will be able to recycle 100% of all waste, maybe extracting enough of what raw materials we need, not needing to dig much more holes in the planet. In other words, technology teamed with the new human values, will make the need for constantly new stuff much much less, and thus the need to constantly dig up new resources.

And to me, being a part of a world where we all try to maximise human and environmental potential and protection, rather than profit, and where we work to develop technology to serve these ends is very interesting and fulfilling.

It would also be a true investment in humanity and the planet. An investment where we strive to take care of the environment,build up the soil, educate all humans and build asustainableworld. A world we all can truly enjoy for the rest of our lives and for all coming generations.

Now, with the human values and the new focus ontechnologyin place, society will change drastically. We all work to fulfill our purpose in life, for our own and others betterment, to master new skills, to share our knowledge and experience and to have exiting and meaningful work. In a society with no money or propertywe can all truly care about each other with no secret agenda.

All humans will be educated to serve other humans and the planet itself. The population will automaticallystabilize when everyone understands that every person can not have more then one child in his/her lifetime, meaning maximum twochildren per family. When this is followed we will have a one birth per one death, securing a stable population on the planet. And this is made by individual choice, not by force. By choice, because people now are educated to see the whole picture, and their own place in it.

What used to be companies and corporations will transform to be hubs of knowledge within their respective fields. There can still be employees, but they wont be there because they need to collect a pay check. They will be there because it is their field of interest and ofexpertise, because they want to be there. To participate and collaborate. People can still start businesses, but not for monetary gain, but to work together on new solutions to old or new problems, to create works of art, to draw new buildings, develop new transportation or new types of energy, new medicines or what have you.It will be a purpose driven world, rather than a profit driven one. It will be a world where human potential is maximized in all aspects.

So then, what would the ore miners do? Maybe some of them have been working in the mine for years and years and know nothing else. Maybe these would want to continue doing what they do, but maybe a little less. Maybe take a long vacation, or only work a couple of days a week. Maybe this leads to adeficiencyofColtan for a while, but so what? So what if we dont get the new iPhone 5 this fall. So what if we dont get the newest flat screen 52 inches LED powered Full HD TV this christmas. So what!?

The only thing in this world that needs this is the never satisfied, always craving, always consuming, never stopping Monetary System that needs cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence and endless waste to exist. But WE dont need that. We are not consumers, it is this system that has made people this way. It is this system that needs us to constantly consume and crave more and more and more, and no wonder, cause if we dont, the whole system will collaps. Just like that. If we stop buying our cell phones, our cars, our flat screens, our new jeans, ourjewelry, our what have you, there will be no more monetary system. So, thats why we need an alternative ASAP. And here we are, discussing RBE.

Back to the ore miners. Some other of the ore miners might have thought of smarter ways to do things, might have ideas to ease the process of getting up that ore. But, he cant tell anyone about it, because if he does, he might loose his job. Because his idea is for a machine that can DO his job. But now, in the new resource based economy, that is exactly what he can do. Of course, the mining company doesnt need to earn money any more either, so they might also relax a bit, digging that ore.

They have now become a part of a globalcooperationof former mining companies, working together in coordinating what is really needed of mined minerals in the world. And the former ore miner workers idea to a new machine that can replace the humans needed down in the mine is welcomed with open arms. He becomes a part of the new global mining cooperation, working together with researchers, scientists andenvironmentalistson how to provide what is now needed of new minerals in a most planet friendly way.

Some of the other miners also wants to be a part of this and becomes a part of the global team. Then again, other miners might grab the opportunity to do something completely different. One of them had always had an interest for sociology, but never go to study it. He goes of to university. The university that is now open for everyone. And the learning is now strongly aided by new technology, facilitating the possibility for many more people to learn than ever before. Another one had wanted to travel the world. Off she goes, being able to go anywhere she wants for as long as she wants. She learns a lot on her trip, and wants to study anthropology to understandindigenouspeople better, and how they can contribute to the world. A third one had several inventive ideas for improving and cleaning contaminated water. He quickly finds other people within these fields where his ideas becomes picked up, improved, tested and used in the real world, improving water everywhere it is needed.

All former patents are now made public, for everyone to study and contribute to. All secrets ever held by governments are let out in the open. All borders are opened and totally free travel by every one made possible. New efficient, environmentally friendly, energy independent and healthy transportation, housing and cities are built all over the planet. And everyone can live anywhere they want, according to their own interest and need. Everyone can contribute in the fields that interest them the most. Everyone can educate themselves in new fields at any time. The world has become 100% efficient in terms of human satisfaction and development. The question is, what do you want to do?. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is needed on the planet at any time and what theindividualfeel is fulfilling to spend his or her days on.

There is a natural coordination in this. When a beach is full, one goes somewhere else. When a field is full, when an area is full, when there is no need, one finds something else to do, elsewhere. And there will always be needs that needs to be met. And we meet them in our full ability. If it is too much, we say so and get more help. We all collaborate in this world.

Humanity has discovered its true purpose here on earth. It turned out that it is not to compete for imaginary money and to hoard property, but to build a better world together, so that everyone can participate in true challenges and feel true and lasting joy.

Property and ownership have, as money, been around for thousands of years, and has been the key building blocks in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system. So, what about property and ownership in RBE? I feel the thoughts float towards communism and other not-so-nice isms here. Shall we have no ownership and own no property in RBE?

I will make a distinction here between personal property and public property.Personal property is your movable items that you own, also called movable property. Public property is what today is dedicated to the use of the public, owned collectively by the population or the state.Today, one person can own vast amounts of land and other property as their private property. More and more state property is now also becoming privately owned. This has been the constant struggle between the capitalists and the state for millennia. The state and the public wants to have property available for itscitizens, while the capitalists wants to secure as much property for themselves.

In RBE, some different models can be discussed. Obviously, no one person can own huge amount of land, like there is today. Still, if a family or a person wants and needs some land to have a family domain to live on and to grow their own food on, this could beaccommodated. Then who would accomodate this, one might ask. In Jacque Frescos RBE, there wouldnt be any state. Instead, there would be computerizeddecisionmaking, determining the fate of humanity. I can not see this working on a large, global scale. For sure, computers can, and does, make a lot of day to day decisions. And for sure, they can and willdefinitelybe extended to make more societal decisions than they do today. But, many decisions will still have to be up to us, the humans. And not to forget, WE are the ones who will be programming the computers, based on what we want out of them.

I foresee some kind of coordination, where coordinators and informators are assigned to different areas on the planet. The persons will not have any deciding power, but will coordinate and inform, together with data technology, what is decided on a particular place. They will be coordinating and informing the community, so to speak. But the community will have constant voting power in all relevant areas. Not like today, where someone are elected, and you have to stick with that person for the remainder of the period. I say relevant areas, because some things can not be voted upon, like the best angle for the pillar under the bridge that is to be built. These types of decisions are up to the specialized personell.

Computers and coordination aside, back to the land. The Venus Project proposes to build completely new cities that would be 100% self sufficient in terms of energy and food production, and very efficient in terms of transportation, energy use and waste management. This is something that would be a naturalextensionof RBE, when the majority of humans starts to think not in terms of money, but in terms of the betterment of people and the planet. So, new and more efficient cities is a natural way to use the land. At the same time, existing cities will be optimized as much as possible in terms of energy use, transportation and waste management. Buildings and parts of cities that are too difficult to optimize, will be recycled into new uses.

Today we have a lot of farming on the planet. Outside our existing cities there are hectare upon hectare of fields of all sorts, producing everything from maize to potatoes and rice to grapes. Today, all of the production of food is dependent on oil, both for transportation, but also for fertilizers and pesticides. An lot of todays food production is simply thrown away to uphold the food prizes on the global marked. Too much bananas? Then we throw some mega tonnes away, so that the rest can be sold for a good prize. Today, millions of tonnes of food is thrown away every day, because unsold food rot away in supermarkets waste containers. At the same time our earth and soil and water gets contaminated with all the artificial fertilizers andpesticidesused to grow the food.

I RBE, the new cities will be 100% self sufficient in terms of food production, utilizing both hydroponics, aquaponics and permaculture principles, providing clean, safe, nutritious and locally produced food all year round with absolutely no use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Very little food will go to waste in RBE, and we will thus need to produce much less of it, than today. So, some land around the cities will be used for food production for that respective city. And since there is no competition between food producers, the food production can be optimized to the true need of the population, minimizing wasteful production and transportation.

Of course, there will be a lot of room for individual choice in RBE, much more than today, where individual choice is determined by ones money amount. If one wants to live on an old type farm, on the country side, one can do this. This is not problem. There is still plenty of land on the planet, and people who wants to live in wooden old houses, redecorate themselves and grow their own food, can do that. If they wants to combine and use the latest technology on their land, they can do that too.

Just as today, we will in RBE have three major categories of land:

1. Cities

2. Country side

3. Wilderness

In difference from today, we will all have access to all of it. Of course, if someone is using it already, and that use is needed, then that part of the land is taken. Just like when you come to a beach, you dont put your towel on top on someone elses. No you put your towel somewhere else on the beach. And if the beach is full, you go somewhere else, or come back another day. And property will be used purposefully. If there is a factor there, producing clothing or something else, then that property is used for that, just like today, except that no one own the factory, but all of us. Someone has responsibility over it, but no one owns it.

In todays world, we see that in many cases, things work better if they are privately owned and sold to the public. At the same time, privately owned corporations can be responsible for a lot of pollution and misbehaving. In other cases, public services work better than private. It seems like it all boils down to the individuals behind it. A corporation can be (quite) environmentally conscious, treat its employers well, and work pretty well for all parties. Still, it is totally binded by the demand of the owners and employees to make profit and go well economically speaking. This, more often than not, ruins the businesses possibility to act in a responsible way when it comes to the environment and to its employees.

Then we come to todays public services. Some work well, some work terrible. At least, there isnt as pronounced profit motive here, as with the privately owned corporations, so more regards can be given to environment and human health. But again, public services are also dependent on money, and thus, are also somewhat a slave to the profit motive.

Privately or publicly owned. What is best? Again, it seems like it boils down to the persons and the intent behind it. It is the individual persons with their stronger or weaker intent that drives the results in this.

Non of us wants a resource based economy to be a new totalitarian dictatorial system. So, back to our first premise, human values and human awakening. It all boils down to this. We, as individuals have to wake up andconsciouslychoose this new direction. We have to consciously choose to share our property and give it up as our own. We have to understand the value in RBE against todays system, and choose based on what works best.

Property is a mindset. As written in another article, we dont really own anything. Ownership is an illusion. We think we own things, we believe we own stuff, but really, we dont. At best, we can say that this is in my possession as long as I need it and use it. This is the only ownership we will ever have overanything. You have a pair of jeans. You might have bought them in a store, you might have gotten them as a gift, or you might have picked them up for free in a used clothes container or sharing market. In any case, you are in possession of them right now. You might lend them to a friend, you might give them away tomorrow, they might be ripped apart by your dog, you might loose them on a trip, or you might throw them away. In any case, when were they yours? Were yours when they were made at the factory? Are they still yours after you have given them away?

No, the notion of ownership and property is only a construction to make the capitalistic society work.Ownership and property has been tools to create the economy and the system we have today, the monetary capitalistic system. There is no real ownership in nature. There is only temporary use and respect for each other. As long as we respect each other, our personal space, then we will have no problems. You can keep a pair of pants for as long as you will, but they are never truly yours. You can walk in the forest, and as you walk on the path, you are using the path, but it is never your property.

So, how will property and ownership work in a resource based economy? It will work like it works in nature. You will own your creations, but not in a way that prevents others to use them and continue to develop them. You will own your pants, but only as long as you need and want them. You will own everything you need as long as you need it.In other words, all land will be public, but you can grow your own vegetables on a plot of land and take care of that as your own as long as you would like that. But you cant claim vast amounts of land as your own if you or your family doesnt need it. You will own your personal property for as long as you want and need it, and the rest will be public property.

In other words, all land will be public, but one can get designated areas to have for instance a family domain or to grow you own vegetables. In general, we will work together to use land and grow food in the most sustainable ways, with or without machinery.

Housing will also be common and open to anyone. Meaning that if you want to live one place for a longer period, you can do that for as long as you want. But if you want to move, you can do that too. And you dont need to bring all the furniture with you, since that will exist on the new place. To travel and visit other countries and cultures will also be much easier in a resource based economy.

In genreal, the distinction is between ownership and accessibility. It should be pretty clear by now, that when no one owns anything, but have access to everything, we all will have much much more access to all the things we today have limited or no access to. At the same time, a lot less would have to be produced of the same things.

Take cars, for instance. Today we have a vast amount of cars on the planet, and more are produced every single day. Still, most of them stands still for 90% of the time, not being in use. So, we have parking lots brim full of unused cars, because we all have to own one. When we instead ownnothing, but have access toeverything, we wouldnt need one tenth of the cars we have today. When we instead share cars, we can all have access to a lot more cars than when we all have to own one car each. We will even have access to cars we never dreamed of driving before.

When we share everyone gets more. Both of land, cars, travel possibilities, boats, clothing, furniture, technology and what have you. Our choices becomes virtuallyunlimitedin RBE vs. in todaysownershipsystem.

For example, Google (one of the new knowledge hubs in RBE) have developed technology for cars so that they can drive themselves (See video here).With this kind of technology, there wouldnt be any problem with sharing cars. One could have a car pool, where one could simply order a car, and the car would show up on your frontporch. You wouldnt even have to drive it if you didnt want to. You could get in, and relax with a good book, check out the scenery, or take a nap, while the car safely drives you to all the way to your destination.

Of course, this is only the beginning. Eventually, cars will also be electric, non-polluting, and maybe even fly!

In summing up, a resource based economy is hard to imagine from our existing mindset and what we are used to. It sounds to good to be possible. But why not? This might be the only solution we have if we want to survive as a species. Maybe we simply have to make it work.

Personally, I think RBE is more than possible. I think it is viable and a real solution for humanity. We are already half way there, with all the voluntarism that exists in the world.

The future is limitless. But only if we let go of the hoarding and self centeredness and look at what isreally possible when we abandon money an focus together on our common future.

Maybe we can look at a resource based economy as the worldtoday, only without money and property, the hopeless financial crisises, wars andbackwardsthinking, but with an emphasis on sharing, experimenting, exploring, collaborating and celebrating.

With a common effort, focussing on values and technology, we can do it. Why not?

See original here:

Will a Resource Based Economy Work?

Attention economy – Wikipedia

Attention economics is an approach to the management of information that treats human attention as a scarce commodity, and applies economic theory to solve various information management problems. Put simply by Matthew Crawford, “Attention is a resourcea person has only so much of it.”[1]

In this perspective Thomas H. Davenport and J. C. Beck define the concept of attention as:

Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness, we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act. (Davenport & Beck 2001, p.20)

As content has grown increasingly abundant and immediately available, attention becomes the limiting factor in the consumption of information.[2] A strong trigger of this effect is that the mental capability of humans is limited and the receptiveness of information is hence limited as well. Attention is used to filter out the most important information by the human brain from a large pool of information surrounding the human in the digital age. [3] A number of software applications either explicitly or implicitly take attention economy into consideration in their user interface design, based on the realization that if it takes the user too long to locate something, they will find it through another application. This is done, for instance, by creating filters to make sure the first content a viewer sees is relevant, of interest, or with the approval of demographics.[4] An attention-based advertising scheme may say they are measuring the number of “eyeballs” by which their content is seen.[5]

Herbert A. Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of attention economics when he wrote:

“…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it” (Simon 1971, pp.4041).

He noted that many designers of information systems incorrectly represented their design problem as information scarcity rather than attention scarcity, and as a result they built systems that excelled at providing more and more information to people, when what was really needed were systems that excelled at filtering out unimportant or irrelevant information (Simon 1996, pp.143144).

In recent years, Simon’s characterization of the problem of information overload as an economic one has become more popular. Business strategists such as Thomas H. Davenport or Michael H. Goldhaber have adopted the term “attention economy” (Davenport & Beck 2001).

Some writers have even speculated that “attention transactions” will replace financial transactions as the focus of our economic system (Goldhaber 1997, Franck 1999). Information systems researchers have also adopted the idea, and are beginning to investigate mechanism designs which build on the idea of creating property rights in attention (see Applications).

According to digital culture expert Kevin Kelly, the modern attention economy is increasingly one where the consumer product costs nothing to reproduce and the problem facing the supplier of the product lies in adding valuable intangibles that cannot be reproduced at any cost. He identifies these intangibles as:[6]

Attention economy is also relevant to the social sphere. More specifically, long term attention can also be considered according to the attention that a person dedicates managing its interactions with others. Dedicating too much attention to these interactions can lead to “social interaction overload”, i.e. when people are overwhelmed in managing their relationships with others, for instance in the context of social network services in which people are the subject of a high level of social solicitations. Digital media and the internet facilitate participation in this economy, by creating new channels for distributing attention. Ordinary people are now empowered to reach a wide audience by publishing their own content and commenting on the content of others.[7]

Social attention can also be associated to collective attention, i.e. how “attention to novel items propagates and eventually fades among large populations.” (Wu & Huberman 2007)

“Attention economics” treats a potential consumer’s attention as a resource.[8] Traditional media advertisers followed a model that suggested consumers went through a linear process they called AIDA – Attention, Interest, Desire and Action. Attention is therefore a major and the first stage in the process of converting non-consumers. Since the cost to transmit advertising to consumers is now sufficiently low that more ads can be transmitted to a consumer (e.g. via online advertising) than the consumer can process, the consumer’s attention becomes the scarce resource to be allocated. Dolgin also states that a superfluidity of information may hinder the decision making of an individual who keeps searching and comparing products as long as it promises to provide more than it is using up.[9]

One application treats various forms of information (spam, advertising) as a form of pollution or ‘detrimental externality’. In economics an externality is a by-product of a production process that imposes burdens (or supplies benefits), to parties other than the intended consumer of a commodity. For example; air and water pollution are negative externalities which impose burdens on society and the environment.

A market-based approach to controlling externalities was outlined in Ronald Coase’s The Problem of Social Cost (Coase 1960). This evolved from an article on the Federal Communications Commission (Coase 1959), in which Coase claimed that radio frequency interference is a negative externality that could be controlled by the creation of property rights.

Coase’s approach to the management of externalities requires the careful specification of property rights and a set of rules for the initial allocation of the rights. Once this has been achieved, a market mechanism can theoretically manage the externality problem. The solution is not necessarily simple in its application to media content (Hay 1996).

Sending huge numbers of e-mail messages costs spammers very little, since the costs of e-mail messages are spread out over the internet service providers that distribute them (and the recipients who must spend attention dealing with them). Thus sending out as much spam as possible is a rational strategy: even if only 0.001% of recipients (1 in 100,000) is converted into a sale, a spam campaign can be profitable (Mangalindan 2002). Spammers are demanding valuable attention from potential customers, but they are avoiding paying a fair price for this attention due to the current architecture of e-mail systems.

One way this might be implemented is by charging senders a small fee per e-mail sent, often referred to as a “Sender Bond.” It might be close to free for an advertiser to send a single e-mail message to a single recipient, but sending that same e-mail to 1000 recipients would cost him 1000 times as much. A 2002 experiment with this kind of usage-based e-mail pricing found that it caused senders to spend more effort targeting their messages to recipients who would find them relevant, thus shifting the cost of deciding whether a given e-mail message is relevant from the recipient to the sender (Kraut 2002).

Closely related is the idea of selling “interrupt rights,” or small fees for the right to demand one’s attention (Fahlman 2002). The cost of these rights could vary according to the interruptee: interrupt rights for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company would presumably be extraordinarily expensive, while those of a high school student might be lower. Costs could also vary for an individual depending on context, perhaps rising during the busy holiday season and falling during the dog days of summer. Interruptees could decline to collect their fees from friends, family, and other welcome interrupters.

Another idea in this vein is the creation of “attention bonds,” small warranties that some information will not be a waste of the recipient’s time, placed into escrow at the time of sending (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004). Like the granters of interrupt rights, receivers could cash in their bonds to signal to the sender that a given communication was a waste of their time or elect not to cash them in to signal that more communication would be welcome.

Supporters of attention markets for controlling spam claim that their solutions are superior to the alternatives for managing uses of information systems on which there is no consensus on the question of whether it is pollution or not. For example, the use of e-mail or text messages for rallying political support or by non-profit charitable organizations may be considered spam by some users but legitimate use by others. Laws against spam put the power to make this decision in the hands of government, while technological solutions like filtering technologies put it in the hands of private companies or technologically savvy users. A market-based solution, on the other hand, allows the possibility of individual negotiation over the worth of a given message rather than a unilateral decision by a controlling party (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004, p.10). Such negotiation itself consumes attention and carries with it an attention cost, though.

As search engines have become the primary means for finding and accessing information on the web, high rankings in the results for certain queries have become valuable commodities, due to the ability of search engines to focus searchers’ attention. Like other information systems, web search is vulnerable to pollution: “Because the Web environment contains profit seeking ventures, attention getting strategies evolve in response to search engine algorithms” (Page 1998). It is estimated that successful exploitation of such strategies, known as web spam, is a potential $4.5 billion per year business (Singhal 2004, p.16).

Since most major search engines now rely on some form of PageRank (recursive counting of hyperlinks to a site) to determine search result rankings, a gray market in the creation and trading of hyperlinks has emerged. Participants in this market engage in a variety of practices known as link spamming, link farming, and reciprocal linking.

However, as opponents of the “nofollow” attribute point out, while this solution may make it incrementally easier for search engines to detect link spam, it does not appreciably change the incentive structure for link spammers unless 100% of existing systems are upgraded to support the standard: as long as some critical mass of spammable sites exists, link spam will continue. Furthermore, the “nofollow” attribute does nothing to combat link farming or reciprocal linking. There is also a philosophical question of whether the links of site commentators (as opposed to site owners) should be treated as “second-class,” leading to the claim that the attribute “heists commentators’ earned attention” (NoNoFollow.net 2005).

Another issue, similar to the issue discussed above of whether or not to consider political e-mail campaigns as spam, is what to do about politically motivated link campaigns or Google bombs (Tatum 2005). Currently the major search engines do not treat these as web spam, but this is a decision made unilaterally by private companies. There is no opportunity for negotiation over the question of what is an appropriate use of attention expressed through hyperlinking. It remains to be seen[vague] whether a market-based approach might provide more flexible handling of these gray areas.

The paid inclusion model, as well as more pervasive advertising networks like Yahoo! Publisher Network and Google’s AdSense, work by treating consumer attention as the property of the search engine (in the case of paid inclusion) or the publisher (in the case of advertising networks). This is somewhat different from the anti-spam uses of property rights in attention, which treat an individual’s attention as his or her own property.

Read more:

Attention economy – Wikipedia

The Venus Project

What is The Venus Project?

The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change, one that works towards a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative []

The plans of The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities directed toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all. Through []

Global problems faced by mankind today are impacting individuals and nations rapidly. Climate change, famine, war, epidemics of deadly diseases and environmental pollution contribute to the long list of global []

The history of The Venus Project offers a unique perspective into Jacque Frescos life. From the early years when he worked at Wright Field to the time he and his []

Visit Roxanne Meadows live at the Research Center in Florida.

Participate in a Seminar lecture and go on a tour around the research center.

Get together with Roxanne and get all your questions about The Venus Project and a Resource Based Economy answered.

There are many ways to help The Venus Project. First and foremost is to become aware of this new direction and learn about it as much as you can.

Later you can become a volunteer and help to spread the word and take part in official projects.

Donations to our cause are also very much appreciated.

2017 The Venus Project | All rights reserved unless otherwise noted.

Here is the original post:

The Venus Project

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community | HuffPost – HuffPost

I started my professional career in the federal government, in the U.S. EPA. I was proud of our work in Washington and proud of our country. In the years since, I always thought our national government was capable of doing better, but mostly considered its dysfunction to be the result of conflicting interests and the role of money in politics and the media. I looked elsewhere for progress and found it everywhere. Then came President Trump: For most of the past seven months Ive found the federal government disheartening and threatening, but unsurprising. Last week all of that was replaced with shame. I was deeply ashamed of the behavior of Donald Trump as he made excuses for the racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and sexist fiends marching in Virginia. It was the worst behavior I have ever seen from an American president. The president is our head of state and our head of government. He is both king and prime minister. As the head of state, his job is to represent the American people and their values. Last week he failed in performing that function; he abdicated his position as head of state.

What do the rest of us do in the face of this onslaught? He is the duly elected president, and although how long he remains in office is difficult to predict, his legitimacy as president is real. Last week we saw a little bit of what we do. Corporate leaders ran away from his advisory councils and even Republican elected leaders took him on. There will be more of this to come because Donald Trumps greatest talent is calling attention to himself. He will do whatever it takes to get noticed and most of us cannot help but watch what he is doing. However, I am coming to the conclusion that our energies would be better spent elsewhere. The federal government is too important to ignore, and so we need to continue to stay engaged, but a higher proportion of our effort should be devoted to our communities, businesses, institutions, cities and states.

The school year will soon begin and millions of American children will return to classrooms. Teachers will engage with students, coaches will inspire kids, and parents will cheer from the sidelines. Our hospitals will heal the sick with technology that continues to progress, smartphones will provide us with even more distractions than they do today, and new technology will help move us toward a renewable resource-based economy. In my home city, teenagers will help a mom carry her babys stroller up the subway stairs, someone will carry groceries to an apartment for an elderly neighbor, and people will see something and say something. We will try to keep each other safe and secure in a world that really is better than the media wants us to believe.

It also means that we need to stop waiting for the federal government to come to our rescue and fund the aging infrastructure that is crumbling in our communities. We will need to generate our own revenues to maintain subways, build bridges and tunnels, repave roads, build water and waste systems, modernize our electric grid, and expand air and seaports. This will require taxes, user fees, and public-private partnerships. Investing in the future means that we defer some gratification today so our children can benefit in the future. Extreme income inequality will not be addressed by the federal tax code and so whatever adjustments can be made will take place by the market and by state and local actions.

The absence of a federal government will make it more difficult for poorer states to invest in the future, unless they can develop a strategy that attracts capital and wealth from the outside. Here in New York City, we have the wealth needed to invest, but are suffering from political posturing and preening by our mayor and governor. Our need for a well-maintained subway system is now being held hostage to their national political ambitions. But despite their dispute, New Yorkers have the ability to generate the funds we need and our attention should be focused on crafting a deal that allows our mass transit system to be maintained and expanded.

While racists may march with torches in Virginia, we see the new multi-racial, multi-national America taking shape on our sidewalks, in our school yards, in social gatherings, and in all of our public spaces. Despite the efforts to turn back the clock to an imaginary America, our demography and mass social change have made this entire nation the gorgeous mosaic that my colleague Professor David Dinkins called New York City a quarter century ago. Most people have friends from different parts of the world and of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Most of our family stories are immigration stories. All four of my grandparents were immigrants. The global economy and world wide web have led to increased global travel and immigration. As a nation that still has a history of welcoming immigrants, America has become more diverse over the past half century. According to DVera Cohn and Andrea Caumont of the Pew Research Center:

Americans are more racially and ethnically diverse than in the past, and the U.S. is projected to be even more diverse in the coming decades. By 2055, the U.S. will not have a single racial or ethnic majority. Much of this change has been (and will be) driven by immigration. Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S. in the past 50 years, mostly from Latin America and Asia. Today, a near-record 14% of the countrys population is foreign born compared with just 5% in 1965. Over the next five decades, the majority of U.S. population growth is projected to be linked to new Asian and Hispanic immigration. American attitudes about immigration and diversity are supportive of these changes for the most part. More Americans say immigrants strengthen the country than say they burden it, and most say the U.S.s increasing ethnic diversity makes it a better place to live.

The demonstrators in Virginia were seeking to resist this emerging reality and prevent this change from occurring, but most Americans and most communities embrace diversity. Immigration presents challenges, but American communities have always been built by people from different places coming together, finding common values and sharing the ideas, beliefs, food and customs they brought from their former home. Mayor Dinkins image of the gorgeous mosaic is appropriate here. Close up, each tile in the mosaic is distinct and identifiable, but when you step back and see how the tiles fit together you see a beautiful picture that has its own grace and logic. That is the American community that most of us see every day. It may not be visible from the penthouse of Trump Tower or the ballroom of Mar-a-Lago, but it is both the American dream and, for the most part, the American reality.

The recent effort to focus immigration on highly skilled workers misses the point. Yes, we want scientists and engineers from other nations. But we also want ambition, drive, daring and leadership. My grandfather, Ben Cohen, was a baker and a carpenter. He was not well-educated. But all five of his children turned out to be successful professionals. Wed like more Albert Einsteins but we need more Ben Cohens. In the coming decades, this nation can maintain its dynamism, as it has in the past, by being the last best hope of humanity. By being a gathering place for those yearning to be free. That was not the spirit of those carrying torches and chanting disgusting slogans, but it is the American spirit at its best. Despite the chaos that has enveloped the White House, we can take comfort in the day-to-day functioning of our American communities.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day’s most important news.

See the original post:

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community | HuffPost – HuffPost

Women drive Sadc integration agenda – The Herald

Nyarai Kampilipili and Kizito SikukaCorrespondents The event had nothing to do with the annual Womens Month that is celebrated here in South Africa every August to remember the sacrifices and contribution of women to the struggle for social equality.

Rather, the sight of Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and Dr Stergomena Lawrence Tax addressing the media ahead of the 37th SADC Summit in South Africa was a clear affirmation that women continue to make a positive contribution towards deepening regional integration and sustainable development in southern Africa.

Nkoana-Mashabane is the incoming chairperson of the SADC Council of Ministers, while Dr Tax is the Executive Secretary of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

In fact, Dr Tax is the first woman to assume the top post at the SADC Secretariat, and since her appointment at a summit in August 2013 in Lilongwe, Malawi has exhibited that performance is key and not gender in holding key decision-making positions.

Based in Gaborone, Botswana, the SADC Secretariat is the principal executive institution of SADC, responsible for strategic planning, facilitation and coordination and management of all SADC programmes, activities and projects. The SADC Council of Ministers oversees the functioning and development of SADC by ensuring that regional policies are properly implemented.

In this regard, both Nkoana-Mashabane, who is the South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister and Dr Tax carry the responsibility of making sure the benefits of belonging to a shared community in southern Africa continue to be enjoyed and impact on the lives of SADC citizens.

During her one-year tenure as Council of Ministers chair, Nkoana-Mashabane is expected to provide guidance to the SADC Secretariat on the implementation of regional programmes, while Dr Tax will ensure that the decisions of the 37th SADC Summit are implemented over the next 12 months.

This will include making sure that the momentum built since 2014 in terms of the implementation of the industrialisation agenda is maintained as part of regional efforts to transform from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based one that is able to add value to its own natural resources and compete strongly on global markets.

SADC has over the years made significant progress towards promoting gender equality and equity in the region.

In fact, gender equality is firmly rooted in the Declaration and Treaty that established the shared community of SADC, and member states fully realise that equality and empowerment of both women and men is crucial for the attainment of sustainable development.

This is clearly reflected in the constitutions of most SADC countries that provide for the creation of legal frameworks that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and other differences.

Some countries have also legislated affirmative action and quota systems that guarantee the participation and representation of women in political and other decision-making positions.

According to the SADC Gender and Development Monitor 2016, four member states are among the top 20 countries in the world with the highest number of women in parliament and other key decision-making positions.

These are Seychelles, South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique, followed closely by Angola, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

In the education sector, gender gaps in literacy levels continue to close, with Botswana, Lesotho, Seychelles and Swaziland having higher literacy rates for women compared to men.

The Revised SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, which was approved at the 36th SADC Summit held in the Kingdom of Swaziland in August 2016, aims to align the protocol with provisions of other instruments such as those relating to the Sustainable Development Goals, Agenda 2063, and the SADC Industrialisation Strategy and Roadmap.

The revised protocol provides for the empowerment of women, elimination of discrimination and attainment of gender equality and equity through enactment of gender-responsive legislation and implementation of policies, programmes and projects.

The 37th SADC Heads of State and Government Summit is scheduled for 19-20 August, and will deliberate on a wide range of issues, including exploring ways of harnessing the potential of the private sector to contribute to the industrialisation agenda and sustainable economic development in the region.

The theme for the summit is Partnering with the private sector in developing industry and regional value-chains.

At the summit, South African President Jacob Zuma will assume the rotating SADC chair from King Mswati III of Swaziland.

Prior to the SADC Summit, there will be a Double Troika meeting on August 18 to discuss the general political situation in the region. sardc.net

Go here to read the rest:

Women drive Sadc integration agenda – The Herald

Opinion: UBC erases boundaries between engineering and health – Vancouver Sun

Mark Ansermino, left, and Guy Dumont were working on a device in 2005 to aid people monitoring patients during surgery. Ward Perrin / Vancouver Sun

A deceptively simple device invented at the University of B.C. is saving lives in the worlds most impoverished places.

Called the Phone Oximeter, it clips onto a persons fingertip and is connected by wire to a smartphones audio port. By measuring blood-oxygen levels and heart and breathing rates with unprecedented simplicity, portability and affordability, its enabling easier diagnosis of illness in Mozambique, Pakistan and Uganda.

How it came to be at UBC reveals the magic of universities.

Fifteen years ago, electrical engineer Guy Dumont, an expert in creating intelligent automated systems, met Mark Ansermino, an anesthesiologist who wanted to improve measurement of vital signs during surgery. From that first encounter between two complementary faculty members, a string of inventions followed.

The Phone Oximeters genesis at a university was no accident. UBC, like so many of its peer institutions, attracts experts in diverse fields. Brought together into a larger community, they sometimes share ideas and wind up doing things they could never achieve or even dream of achieving on their own.

But when that lightning does strike, its often by accident or the result of occasional get-togethers. If only we could make such interactions a regular feature on our campuses, imagine the ingenuity that would spring forth.

Now we are now doing just that, with UBCs latest creation: a school of biomedical engineering.

This new cluster of faculty and students, a joint venture of the faculties of medicine and applied science, will break down antiquated academic boundaries. We want to replicate many times over the genius of the Phone Oximeter applying an engineering mindset to disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

That could mean medical devices like the Phone Oximeter. But it also means extending engineering into realms that most people have a hard time grasping: the splicing of genes, the rearrangement of proteins and the cultivation of stem cells, which can be coaxed into repairing or even replacing damaged tissues or organs.

This is a squishier world than many engineers are used to. But its governed by the same physical principles that all engineering students must master. And its just as yielding to their quantitative approach and creative design skills, which offer new solutions to societys major health challenges, including cancer, neurological disease, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

UBC is the first university in Western Canada to recognize the importance of this burgeoning field with a school of its own. And we are doing it at a propitious time, as B.C. diversifies its resource-based economy by cultivating a vibrant tech sector, and as the province joins the University of Washington in creating the Cascadia Urban Analytics Cooperative, emulating the success of such regional tech hubs as Silicon Valley, North Carolinas Research Triangle and Bostons Route 128 Corridor.

To fulfil even part of that tech-based vision, higher education must position itself several steps ahead by preparing students to readily enter that economy from the moment they graduate, and to play leading roles in both established companies and new ventures. Playing catch-up isnt an option we need to cultivate the talent now or risk having that vision wither for lack of local talent.

The Phone Oximeter, invented at the University of B.C., clips onto a persons fingertip and is connected by wire to a smartphones audio port. By measuring blood-oxygen levels and heart and breathing rates with unprecedented simplicity, portability and affordability, its enabling easier diagnosis of illness in Mozambique, Pakistan and Uganda. Handout / PNG

Clearly, there is a demand for such training. The faculty of applied science started offering masters degrees and doctorates in biomedical engineering a mere seven years ago, and applications have increased steadily to almost 200 in 2016.

The new school will provide those students expected to number about 90 this year with a distinct, high-profile home, signalling to future students our commitment to be a leader in this field. In the years ahead we hope to extend the talent pipeline even further by offering bachelors degrees in biomedical engineering as well.

That higher profile will also help attract the most promising or sought-after biomedical engineering faculty. In fact, it already has: Peter Zandstra, most recently of the University of Toronto, has joined UBC to become the schools first director.

Zandstra wont need much help finding his way around he spent five years at UBC earning his doctorate in biotechnology and chemical engineering. But we recruited him for his ingenuity in growing stem cells, his mathematical modelling to predict how stem cells behave and how they can be controlled, and his success in generating human tissue for drug testing or treatment. On top of all that, he has proven leadership skills, honed from his experience steering large academic research groups and startup companies.

Joining him in the months and years ahead will be seven other new faculty members, along with 20 current faculty members jointly appointed from their current departments, including electrical engineer Tim Salcudean, who has proudly ignored the obsolete divisions that once separated him from his medical colleagues.

Salcudean is advancing two innovations that have already transformed patient care: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. He is making those technologies more revealing by bringing digital analysis to images that are now mostly eyeballed. He is also making them more useful by superimposing MRI and ultrasound images onto magnified images of a surgical field, so surgeons can see underneath the tissue on which theyre operating, and thus spot patches of cancer that would normally be hidden.

These arent an academics theoretical musings. Thanks to UBCs partnerships with the provinces health system, Salcudean has been able to team up with UBC urologist Peter Black to successfully test ultrasound and MRI image-guided techniques on 27 patients with prostate cancer. Based on those results, there are plans for more.

We cant simply leave those kinds of advances to the random happenstance of the occasional symposium or accidental meeting. The stakes in terms of lives saved or quality of life are too high.

Our new school of biomedical engineering will bring health scientists, clinicians and engineers together on a daily basis and provide them with the space and the tools to collaborate. Just as important, it will bring graduate students and medical students into that collaboration to learn from it, emulate it and, we hope, take it in directions that we havent yet imagined.

Dermot Kelleher is dean of the faculty of medicine and James Olson is interim dean of the faculty of applied science at the University of B.C.

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Link:

Opinion: UBC erases boundaries between engineering and health – Vancouver Sun

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Solution Description

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life, provide a high standard of living for all, universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat. This assurance could reduce mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore our abilities.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems. There is no profit, there is no PIB. The main figures in an Resource Based Economy are right the resources of the earth, so it is directly relevant to our sustainable activities. Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. The thought of eliminating money still troubles us, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Read the rest here:

Resource Based Economy | The Future We Want

Will a Resource Based Economy Work?

There has been a longer discussion recently in this article whether a resource based economy will work or not. And the opposers argument was largely centered around a notion that in RBE there will be no contracts, that people can just walk away from their job, and that this will lead to a lack of mining ore. That we wont find people to work in the mines to dig up minerals needed for our social production as he calls it, to produce our cell phones and laptops, etc.

Of course, he does have a point. But not only in regards to mining ore, but in regards to the operation of the whole planet. I understand his concern as I have it myself. The complexity of the world we have today is extremely vast when it comes to the production of goods and services. Of course, mining of ore to extract minerals, is one of the aspects of this complexity. We have a huge production of different products that need everything from aluminum to plastics to glass to silicon to mention but a tiny percentage of the whole. And all of these minerals and raw materials are processed in a lot of different places and manufactured into a huge amount of different products. And this goes on on thousands of locations all over the planet.

All of the alternative solutions to the problems we have in the world today deal with solutionswithin the monetary system. We have recycling, carbon shares, cradle to cradle, environmental protection, and so forth. All of these deals with the industry and the monetary system staying as it is. Recycling means that we have to recycle the minerals and raw materials used in many of our products. Carbon shares is a monetary way for the society to be able to continue to pollute the environment, but it will cost a bit more for the polluter. Cradle to cradle means that industries produce everything with the termination and recycling of the product in mind, not using any harmful agents in the product. Environmental protection is the total of allmeasures taken in regards to protect the environment, but still within the monetary system.

All of these measures assumethat the monetary system, the industry, the free market and so forth stay largely as it is. With recycling, cradle to cradle and carbon shares thinking, we still think in terms ofcontinuousconsumption and unlimited economic growth.

It is understandable that the majority of people can not think in terms of changing the whole system, from the root and up, because it is very difficult to think that far out of the box.

We have all become used to our way of life, with tonnes and tonnes of different products inthousandsof different categories. And we all think that this has to go on. We all think that we need hundreds of different producers of cell phones, lap tops, cars, mattresses, guitars, etc. etc.

Yes, we, humans are an industrious race. We have ideas, we produce, we manufacture, we consume, and we do it all over again. This is who we are. Isnt it? Humans have proven to be full of ideas and ingenious solutions to many of the problems of being human. We are also very good at creating problems for ourselves, so that we can have yet more to solve. We constantly do this, and it seems to be human nature. And we all want to be free. Free to do what we want, travel where we want, think and say what we want, work with what we want and live wherever we want. Of course, this kind of freedom is limited to only a few in our world today.

My point and question is; How can/will a resource based economy work on a global scale, without it becoming a totalitarian system? For sure, none of us wants any global machinegovernment, even though that is what Jacque Fresco of The Venus Project proposes. We all wants to be able to make our owndecisions. So, how can it work, then? We are all so indoctrinated into thinking that if theres no penalty in terms of job loss, money loss, property loss and so forth, we cant get people to do what is needed in society.

We think that if everyone will be able to do whatever they want to do, then we will lack a whole lot of people to dig ore as our commenter puts it. No one will take on a dangerous job like going into the mines and dig out the urgently needed minerals to produce our cell phones, because when he/she gets everything he/she needs, he/she could simply walk away whenever he/she wants. Since there wouldnt be any binding contract (in terms of money/property/job loss) in a resource based economy, the whole of society would simply collaps.

Trust me, I truly, really and utterly understand this concern and this disbelief in a resource based economy.

The first time I heard about RBE, Iimmediatelygot a feeling that this is good, but at the same time, I couldnt get it to work in my intellectual analyzing mind. And thats why I started this blog. I felt strongly that RBE is possible, and not only possible, but the best alternative humanity has ever been able to choose. But I couldnt prove it. Because I too was totally indoctrinated in my mind in regards to thinking about money and property as givens. As something thats always been there, like air. It has taken me a couple of years to dedoctrinate myself into seeing how RBE can be possible.

So, back to our question. If we have no money or need for money, and everything is provided for everyone, what will make people work in the mines and do all the dirty work needed in our society? It is a very good question, and I am not sure that I can give a 100% answer to that. Because I dont know. I can only speculate and imagine, which I have done for a couple of years. And my answer goes like this:

Firstly, we have to think of RBE as a totally and utterly different society. We can not think of an RBE society with our monetary goggles. We have to take them off. We have to be able to imagine that the individuals on this planet can actually shift their way of thinking from a penalty based society to a freedom of contribution society where we do what we do because we want to contribute to society in meaningful ways. Many people think this way already and refuse to take jobs just to earn money but do what they do because of theirconviction in a different society. They have an inherent need to do something meaningful that truly contributes to this world.Thinking that there has to be a monetary penalty lurking in the background to get people to do what is really needed in society is seeing this with the old monetary goggles.

The truth is that the monetary reward is over rated in terms of production efficiency. There have numerous studies that support this. Take a look atDan PinksTED Talk about this phenomena and the animation made from it. What is shows is that higher incentives leads to worse performance. It sounds like a self contradictory statement, but when you think about it and see the background, it is not. And these results have been replicated over and over again bypsychiatrists, sociologists and economists. For simple, straight forward tasks, if you do this, then you get that, monetary incentives are great. But when a task gets more complicated, when it requires some more conceptual thinking, the monetary incentives dont work.

What the research continues to show is that money is a motivator only when it gets people to take on a job. After getting the job, there are other factors that leads to betterperformanceand personal satisfaction, and they are; Autonomy, mastery and purpose. Money only plays a part if the job doesnt pay good enough for people to make a living. As soon as people are paid enough, then these other factors are the important ones.

What this shows is that the true values within humans are not penalty centered, but rather centered around our previous notion of freedom of contribution. Autonomy is a vital value. People wants to feel that they have a freedom to choose what they do and how they do it. Mastery is an equally important value. To have enough education and experience to really feel that one masters and succeeds in resolving the tasks at hand. And last, but not least:purpose. We all have to feel a sense of purpose in what we do. It has to be meaningful. In other words, money, and the threat of a monetary penalty is not the reasons why people do stuff.

This shows to prove that people actually might be digging ore if there is a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose in the job.

Then we come to the point where we have to take off the monetary goggles and put on the RBE goggles instead. When we have this totally brand new world and way of thinking, there would be so many things that would be different. Since people doesnt have to take a job because of money anymore, what would people do? Why would they do anything? Well, the formersection should give the answer. People would seek meaningful and purposeful tasks. We would seek tasks where we feel a sense of autonomy and mastery. I think we also can add several reasons why people would do stuff that the mentioned research doesnt show. Likeexcitement, interest and fulfillment.

So, meaning, purpose, mastery, autonomy, excitement, interest and fulfillment are what really drives people, and what will drive people in a resource based economy.

Now, back to digging ore. If this activity brings any of the above mentioned elements, people will do it. But, when we have a resource based economy, where most people have waken up from the continuous consumption cycle and where most people wants to contribute to the betterment of society, things like digging ore will not be as needed as before. Why? Because of several things. With the new mindset of humanity, consumption will go drastically down. Not so much new minerals and raw materials has to be dug up. Production will go down too, as products will be made to last and instead of postponing the release of new technology to maximize profit, the newest technology can be released right away, thus saving millions of tonnes of raw material that other wise would have been used in the never ending new products. And lastly, technology that digs ore will be developed, minimizing the need for human personell way down in the mines.

To see how a resource based economy can work, we can divide it into 4 categories:

1. The human values has changed, or rather, has become acknowledged.

2. Technology has become more and more developed, removing the need for humans doing dangerous andrepetitivetasks.

3. As a result of RBE, society as a whole has changed drastically.

4. The notion of property and ownership has changed.

The most important first step for RBE to work is the human values. As we see, people are intrinsically motivated by other things than money, like a sense of purpose and meaning. It is only todays need for money that locks people into a mind prison thinking that money is what motivates them, when it really is not.

So this is about education and awakening. For RBE not to be a totalitarian, global, machine based government, which non of us want, people have to wake up one by one into the truth of their own motivation. We, as individuals have to train ourselves and each other into thinking of why we are here and what we really want to do, not in terms of money, but in terms of what we feel as our true purpose here on the planet.

I am training myself everyday to think this way. And the way I do it is to tell my self that every thing I do, I do of service to the planet and humanity, service to others, and service to my self. Service to my self in terms of what I want to do here on earth. And, I have already had theepiphanythat being of service to others can be extremely fulfilling for my self. Thus, doing what I do the very best way I can do it, is a fulfilling thing. And this has nothing to do with money. What is funny, though, is that since I started thinking like this, I have had more to do in my business than ever before, which of course brings in much more money than ever before as well.

Of course, we can say that money is a means of gratitude, a flow of appreciation, going from one person to another. I am not opposed to that way of thinking. Far from it. It is just that money and property and the whole management of the whole planet has been so thoroughly fucked up by the money logic, that trying to think of a world totally without money and property would do us all very good. It certainly does me good. And I realize that as soon as I start to think in terms of money, Iimmediatelyget that old stressful feeling again. It is me not thinking about money but at my purpose of being of service that brings the money in! Because when I think that I dont need money, I become relaxed, and the law of attraction works in my favor.

And then, my friends, what would be the logicalconsequenceof this? Well, if all of us started thinking of our purpose, rather than money, and doing things out of purpose rather than money.we wouldnt need any money! When our purpose is to be of service, to give and share, then everyone will always have enough of everything ever needed.And low and behold, we would actually live purpose- and meaningful lives. Every one of us. No need to stress for more money, paying bills, pay taxes, take up loans, do accounting, pay insurance, and what have you.

For a resource based economy to work, more and more people on the planet have to wake up to this reality. It is a human choice that we have to do as individuals. There are already a whole lot of volunteers around the world working for non-profit volunteer organizations. So the notion is not new. The question is whether it will spread to the rest of society as well. But that a whole world could work for free for each other should be totally possible. At least when enough (critical mass) people realize the benefits of doing this, rather than toiling with money and all that it entails.

When the new value system is in place, when enough people realize the above mentioned, both people who now are in normal jobs, but also those who are in politics and those who run large corporations, the abandonment of money will be a reality. Then, with the profit motive gone, technology can be developed without the hindrances that patents and greed used to be for unlimited development.

When we can concentrate on developing the best technology for everyone in every circumstance, and we can truly let technology replace 99% of todays jobs. Jobs that now are kept open, since replacing them with technology would bedevastatingfor the economy. Today, millions of people still work in factories doning work that easily could have been replaced by machines, robots and technology. There are already a whole lot of machines and technology in place, but again and again, I see people closing the lid on cardboard boxes and other meaninglessrepetitivetasks easily replaceable by technology.

And back to the ore digging metaphor. I am pretty sure that this field is also one where technology and machines could do much more work then it does today, replacing the need for human personell in mines. Besides, when we truly make products to last, and human values have changed, we wont consume as much, and we will be able to recycle 100% of all waste, maybe extracting enough of what raw materials we need, not needing to dig much more holes in the planet. In other words, technology teamed with the new human values, will make the need for constantly new stuff much much less, and thus the need to constantly dig up new resources.

And to me, being a part of a world where we all try to maximise human and environmental potential and protection, rather than profit, and where we work to develop technology to serve these ends is very interesting and fulfilling.

It would also be a true investment in humanity and the planet. An investment where we strive to take care of the environment,build up the soil, educate all humans and build asustainableworld. A world we all can truly enjoy for the rest of our lives and for all coming generations.

Now, with the human values and the new focus ontechnologyin place, society will change drastically. We all work to fulfill our purpose in life, for our own and others betterment, to master new skills, to share our knowledge and experience and to have exiting and meaningful work. In a society with no money or propertywe can all truly care about each other with no secret agenda.

All humans will be educated to serve other humans and the planet itself. The population will automaticallystabilize when everyone understands that every person can not have more then one child in his/her lifetime, meaning maximum twochildren per family. When this is followed we will have a one birth per one death, securing a stable population on the planet. And this is made by individual choice, not by force. By choice, because people now are educated to see the whole picture, and their own place in it.

What used to be companies and corporations will transform to be hubs of knowledge within their respective fields. There can still be employees, but they wont be there because they need to collect a pay check. They will be there because it is their field of interest and ofexpertise, because they want to be there. To participate and collaborate. People can still start businesses, but not for monetary gain, but to work together on new solutions to old or new problems, to create works of art, to draw new buildings, develop new transportation or new types of energy, new medicines or what have you.It will be a purpose driven world, rather than a profit driven one. It will be a world where human potential is maximized in all aspects.

So then, what would the ore miners do? Maybe some of them have been working in the mine for years and years and know nothing else. Maybe these would want to continue doing what they do, but maybe a little less. Maybe take a long vacation, or only work a couple of days a week. Maybe this leads to adeficiencyofColtan for a while, but so what? So what if we dont get the new iPhone 5 this fall. So what if we dont get the newest flat screen 52 inches LED powered Full HD TV this christmas. So what!?

The only thing in this world that needs this is the never satisfied, always craving, always consuming, never stopping Monetary System that needs cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence and endless waste to exist. But WE dont need that. We are not consumers, it is this system that has made people this way. It is this system that needs us to constantly consume and crave more and more and more, and no wonder, cause if we dont, the whole system will collaps. Just like that. If we stop buying our cell phones, our cars, our flat screens, our new jeans, ourjewelry, our what have you, there will be no more monetary system. So, thats why we need an alternative ASAP. And here we are, discussing RBE.

Back to the ore miners. Some other of the ore miners might have thought of smarter ways to do things, might have ideas to ease the process of getting up that ore. But, he cant tell anyone about it, because if he does, he might loose his job. Because his idea is for a machine that can DO his job. But now, in the new resource based economy, that is exactly what he can do. Of course, the mining company doesnt need to earn money any more either, so they might also relax a bit, digging that ore.

They have now become a part of a globalcooperationof former mining companies, working together in coordinating what is really needed of mined minerals in the world. And the former ore miner workers idea to a new machine that can replace the humans needed down in the mine is welcomed with open arms. He becomes a part of the new global mining cooperation, working together with researchers, scientists andenvironmentalistson how to provide what is now needed of new minerals in a most planet friendly way.

Some of the other miners also wants to be a part of this and becomes a part of the global team. Then again, other miners might grab the opportunity to do something completely different. One of them had always had an interest for sociology, but never go to study it. He goes of to university. The university that is now open for everyone. And the learning is now strongly aided by new technology, facilitating the possibility for many more people to learn than ever before. Another one had wanted to travel the world. Off she goes, being able to go anywhere she wants for as long as she wants. She learns a lot on her trip, and wants to study anthropology to understandindigenouspeople better, and how they can contribute to the world. A third one had several inventive ideas for improving and cleaning contaminated water. He quickly finds other people within these fields where his ideas becomes picked up, improved, tested and used in the real world, improving water everywhere it is needed.

All former patents are now made public, for everyone to study and contribute to. All secrets ever held by governments are let out in the open. All borders are opened and totally free travel by every one made possible. New efficient, environmentally friendly, energy independent and healthy transportation, housing and cities are built all over the planet. And everyone can live anywhere they want, according to their own interest and need. Everyone can contribute in the fields that interest them the most. Everyone can educate themselves in new fields at any time. The world has become 100% efficient in terms of human satisfaction and development. The question is, what do you want to do?. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is needed on the planet at any time and what theindividualfeel is fulfilling to spend his or her days on.

There is a natural coordination in this. When a beach is full, one goes somewhere else. When a field is full, when an area is full, when there is no need, one finds something else to do, elsewhere. And there will always be needs that needs to be met. And we meet them in our full ability. If it is too much, we say so and get more help. We all collaborate in this world.

Humanity has discovered its true purpose here on earth. It turned out that it is not to compete for imaginary money and to hoard property, but to build a better world together, so that everyone can participate in true challenges and feel true and lasting joy.

Property and ownership have, as money, been around for thousands of years, and has been the key building blocks in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system. So, what about property and ownership in RBE? I feel the thoughts float towards communism and other not-so-nice isms here. Shall we have no ownership and own no property in RBE?

I will make a distinction here between personal property and public property.Personal property is your movable items that you own, also called movable property. Public property is what today is dedicated to the use of the public, owned collectively by the population or the state.Today, one person can own vast amounts of land and other property as their private property. More and more state property is now also becoming privately owned. This has been the constant struggle between the capitalists and the state for millennia. The state and the public wants to have property available for itscitizens, while the capitalists wants to secure as much property for themselves.

In RBE, some different models can be discussed. Obviously, no one person can own huge amount of land, like there is today. Still, if a family or a person wants and needs some land to have a family domain to live on and to grow their own food on, this could beaccommodated. Then who would accomodate this, one might ask. In Jacque Frescos RBE, there wouldnt be any state. Instead, there would be computerizeddecisionmaking, determining the fate of humanity. I can not see this working on a large, global scale. For sure, computers can, and does, make a lot of day to day decisions. And for sure, they can and willdefinitelybe extended to make more societal decisions than they do today. But, many decisions will still have to be up to us, the humans. And not to forget, WE are the ones who will be programming the computers, based on what we want out of them.

I foresee some kind of coordination, where coordinators and informators are assigned to different areas on the planet. The persons will not have any deciding power, but will coordinate and inform, together with data technology, what is decided on a particular place. They will be coordinating and informing the community, so to speak. But the community will have constant voting power in all relevant areas. Not like today, where someone are elected, and you have to stick with that person for the remainder of the period. I say relevant areas, because some things can not be voted upon, like the best angle for the pillar under the bridge that is to be built. These types of decisions are up to the specialized personell.

Computers and coordination aside, back to the land. The Venus Project proposes to build completely new cities that would be 100% self sufficient in terms of energy and food production, and very efficient in terms of transportation, energy use and waste management. This is something that would be a naturalextensionof RBE, when the majority of humans starts to think not in terms of money, but in terms of the betterment of people and the planet. So, new and more efficient cities is a natural way to use the land. At the same time, existing cities will be optimized as much as possible in terms of energy use, transportation and waste management. Buildings and parts of cities that are too difficult to optimize, will be recycled into new uses.

Today we have a lot of farming on the planet. Outside our existing cities there are hectare upon hectare of fields of all sorts, producing everything from maize to potatoes and rice to grapes. Today, all of the production of food is dependent on oil, both for transportation, but also for fertilizers and pesticides. An lot of todays food production is simply thrown away to uphold the food prizes on the global marked. Too much bananas? Then we throw some mega tonnes away, so that the rest can be sold for a good prize. Today, millions of tonnes of food is thrown away every day, because unsold food rot away in supermarkets waste containers. At the same time our earth and soil and water gets contaminated with all the artificial fertilizers andpesticidesused to grow the food.

I RBE, the new cities will be 100% self sufficient in terms of food production, utilizing both hydroponics, aquaponics and permaculture principles, providing clean, safe, nutritious and locally produced food all year round with absolutely no use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Very little food will go to waste in RBE, and we will thus need to produce much less of it, than today. So, some land around the cities will be used for food production for that respective city. And since there is no competition between food producers, the food production can be optimized to the true need of the population, minimizing wasteful production and transportation.

Of course, there will be a lot of room for individual choice in RBE, much more than today, where individual choice is determined by ones money amount. If one wants to live on an old type farm, on the country side, one can do this. This is not problem. There is still plenty of land on the planet, and people who wants to live in wooden old houses, redecorate themselves and grow their own food, can do that. If they wants to combine and use the latest technology on their land, they can do that too.

Just as today, we will in RBE have three major categories of land:

1. Cities

2. Country side

3. Wilderness

In difference from today, we will all have access to all of it. Of course, if someone is using it already, and that use is needed, then that part of the land is taken. Just like when you come to a beach, you dont put your towel on top on someone elses. No you put your towel somewhere else on the beach. And if the beach is full, you go somewhere else, or come back another day. And property will be used purposefully. If there is a factor there, producing clothing or something else, then that property is used for that, just like today, except that no one own the factory, but all of us. Someone has responsibility over it, but no one owns it.

In todays world, we see that in many cases, things work better if they are privately owned and sold to the public. At the same time, privately owned corporations can be responsible for a lot of pollution and misbehaving. In other cases, public services work better than private. It seems like it all boils down to the individuals behind it. A corporation can be (quite) environmentally conscious, treat its employers well, and work pretty well for all parties. Still, it is totally binded by the demand of the owners and employees to make profit and go well economically speaking. This, more often than not, ruins the businesses possibility to act in a responsible way when it comes to the environment and to its employees.

Then we come to todays public services. Some work well, some work terrible. At least, there isnt as pronounced profit motive here, as with the privately owned corporations, so more regards can be given to environment and human health. But again, public services are also dependent on money, and thus, are also somewhat a slave to the profit motive.

Privately or publicly owned. What is best? Again, it seems like it boils down to the persons and the intent behind it. It is the individual persons with their stronger or weaker intent that drives the results in this.

Non of us wants a resource based economy to be a new totalitarian dictatorial system. So, back to our first premise, human values and human awakening. It all boils down to this. We, as individuals have to wake up andconsciouslychoose this new direction. We have to consciously choose to share our property and give it up as our own. We have to understand the value in RBE against todays system, and choose based on what works best.

Property is a mindset. As written in another article, we dont really own anything. Ownership is an illusion. We think we own things, we believe we own stuff, but really, we dont. At best, we can say that this is in my possession as long as I need it and use it. This is the only ownership we will ever have overanything. You have a pair of jeans. You might have bought them in a store, you might have gotten them as a gift, or you might have picked them up for free in a used clothes container or sharing market. In any case, you are in possession of them right now. You might lend them to a friend, you might give them away tomorrow, they might be ripped apart by your dog, you might loose them on a trip, or you might throw them away. In any case, when were they yours? Were yours when they were made at the factory? Are they still yours after you have given them away?

No, the notion of ownership and property is only a construction to make the capitalistic society work.Ownership and property has been tools to create the economy and the system we have today, the monetary capitalistic system. There is no real ownership in nature. There is only temporary use and respect for each other. As long as we respect each other, our personal space, then we will have no problems. You can keep a pair of pants for as long as you will, but they are never truly yours. You can walk in the forest, and as you walk on the path, you are using the path, but it is never your property.

So, how will property and ownership work in a resource based economy? It will work like it works in nature. You will own your creations, but not in a way that prevents others to use them and continue to develop them. You will own your pants, but only as long as you need and want them. You will own everything you need as long as you need it.In other words, all land will be public, but you can grow your own vegetables on a plot of land and take care of that as your own as long as you would like that. But you cant claim vast amounts of land as your own if you or your family doesnt need it. You will own your personal property for as long as you want and need it, and the rest will be public property.

In other words, all land will be public, but one can get designated areas to have for instance a family domain or to grow you own vegetables. In general, we will work together to use land and grow food in the most sustainable ways, with or without machinery.

Housing will also be common and open to anyone. Meaning that if you want to live one place for a longer period, you can do that for as long as you want. But if you want to move, you can do that too. And you dont need to bring all the furniture with you, since that will exist on the new place. To travel and visit other countries and cultures will also be much easier in a resource based economy.

In genreal, the distinction is between ownership and accessibility. It should be pretty clear by now, that when no one owns anything, but have access to everything, we all will have much much more access to all the things we today have limited or no access to. At the same time, a lot less would have to be produced of the same things.

Take cars, for instance. Today we have a vast amount of cars on the planet, and more are produced every single day. Still, most of them stands still for 90% of the time, not being in use. So, we have parking lots brim full of unused cars, because we all have to own one. When we instead ownnothing, but have access toeverything, we wouldnt need one tenth of the cars we have today. When we instead share cars, we can all have access to a lot more cars than when we all have to own one car each. We will even have access to cars we never dreamed of driving before.

When we share everyone gets more. Both of land, cars, travel possibilities, boats, clothing, furniture, technology and what have you. Our choices becomes virtuallyunlimitedin RBE vs. in todaysownershipsystem.

For example, Google (one of the new knowledge hubs in RBE) have developed technology for cars so that they can drive themselves (See video here).With this kind of technology, there wouldnt be any problem with sharing cars. One could have a car pool, where one could simply order a car, and the car would show up on your frontporch. You wouldnt even have to drive it if you didnt want to. You could get in, and relax with a good book, check out the scenery, or take a nap, while the car safely drives you to all the way to your destination.

Of course, this is only the beginning. Eventually, cars will also be electric, non-polluting, and maybe even fly!

In summing up, a resource based economy is hard to imagine from our existing mindset and what we are used to. It sounds to good to be possible. But why not? This might be the only solution we have if we want to survive as a species. Maybe we simply have to make it work.

Personally, I think RBE is more than possible. I think it is viable and a real solution for humanity. We are already half way there, with all the voluntarism that exists in the world.

The future is limitless. But only if we let go of the hoarding and self centeredness and look at what isreally possible when we abandon money an focus together on our common future.

Maybe we can look at a resource based economy as the worldtoday, only without money and property, the hopeless financial crisises, wars andbackwardsthinking, but with an emphasis on sharing, experimenting, exploring, collaborating and celebrating.

With a common effort, focussing on values and technology, we can do it. Why not?

Excerpt from:

Will a Resource Based Economy Work?

Attention economy – Wikipedia

Attention economics is an approach to the management of information that treats human attention as a scarce commodity, and applies economic theory to solve various information management problems. Put simply by Matthew Crawford, “Attention is a resourcea person has only so much of it.”[1]

In this perspective Thomas H. Davenport and J. C. Beck define the concept of attention as:

Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness, we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act. (Davenport & Beck 2001, p.20)

As content has grown increasingly abundant and immediately available, attention becomes the limiting factor in the consumption of information.[2] A strong trigger of this effect is that the mental capability of humans is limited and the receptiveness of information is hence limited as well. Attention is used to filter out the most important information by the human brain from a large pool of information surrounding the human in the digital age. [3] A number of software applications either explicitly or implicitly take attention economy into consideration in their user interface design, based on the realization that if it takes the user too long to locate something, they will find it through another application. This is done, for instance, by creating filters to make sure the first content a viewer sees is relevant, of interest, or with the approval of demographics.[4] An attention-based advertising scheme may say they are measuring the number of “eyeballs” by which their content is seen.[5]

Herbert A. Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of attention economics when he wrote:

“…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it” (Simon 1971, pp.4041).

He noted that many designers of information systems incorrectly represented their design problem as information scarcity rather than attention scarcity, and as a result they built systems that excelled at providing more and more information to people, when what was really needed were systems that excelled at filtering out unimportant or irrelevant information (Simon 1996, pp.143144).

In recent years, Simon’s characterization of the problem of information overload as an economic one has become more popular. Business strategists such as Thomas H. Davenport or Michael H. Goldhaber have adopted the term “attention economy” (Davenport & Beck 2001).

Some writers have even speculated that “attention transactions” will replace financial transactions as the focus of our economic system (Goldhaber 1997, Franck 1999). Information systems researchers have also adopted the idea, and are beginning to investigate mechanism designs which build on the idea of creating property rights in attention (see Applications).

According to digital culture expert Kevin Kelly, the modern attention economy is increasingly one where the consumer product costs nothing to reproduce and the problem facing the supplier of the product lies in adding valuable intangibles that cannot be reproduced at any cost. He identifies these intangibles as:[6]

Attention economy is also relevant to the social sphere. More specifically, long term attention can also be considered according to the attention that a person dedicates managing its interactions with others. Dedicating too much attention to these interactions can lead to “social interaction overload”, i.e. when people are overwhelmed in managing their relationships with others, for instance in the context of social network services in which people are the subject of a high level of social solicitations. Digital media and the internet facilitate participation in this economy, by creating new channels for distributing attention. Ordinary people are now empowered to reach a wide audience by publishing their own content and commenting on the content of others.[7]

Social attention can also be associated to collective attention, i.e. how “attention to novel items propagates and eventually fades among large populations.” (Wu & Huberman 2007)

“Attention economics” treats a potential consumer’s attention as a resource.[8] Traditional media advertisers followed a model that suggested consumers went through a linear process they called AIDA – Attention, Interest, Desire and Action. Attention is therefore a major and the first stage in the process of converting non-consumers. Since the cost to transmit advertising to consumers is now sufficiently low that more ads can be transmitted to a consumer (e.g. via online advertising) than the consumer can process, the consumer’s attention becomes the scarce resource to be allocated. Dolgin also states that a superfluidity of information may hinder the decision making of an individual who keeps searching and comparing products as long as it promises to provide more than it is using up.[9]

One application treats various forms of information (spam, advertising) as a form of pollution or ‘detrimental externality’. In economics an externality is a by-product of a production process that imposes burdens (or supplies benefits), to parties other than the intended consumer of a commodity. For example; air and water pollution are negative externalities which impose burdens on society and the environment.

A market-based approach to controlling externalities was outlined in Ronald Coase’s The Problem of Social Cost (Coase 1960). This evolved from an article on the Federal Communications Commission (Coase 1959), in which Coase claimed that radio frequency interference is a negative externality that could be controlled by the creation of property rights.

Coase’s approach to the management of externalities requires the careful specification of property rights and a set of rules for the initial allocation of the rights. Once this has been achieved, a market mechanism can theoretically manage the externality problem. The solution is not necessarily simple in its application to media content (Hay 1996).

Sending huge numbers of e-mail messages costs spammers very little, since the costs of e-mail messages are spread out over the internet service providers that distribute them (and the recipients who must spend attention dealing with them). Thus sending out as much spam as possible is a rational strategy: even if only 0.001% of recipients (1 in 100,000) is converted into a sale, a spam campaign can be profitable (Mangalindan 2002). Spammers are demanding valuable attention from potential customers, but they are avoiding paying a fair price for this attention due to the current architecture of e-mail systems.

One way this might be implemented is by charging senders a small fee per e-mail sent, often referred to as a “Sender Bond.” It might be close to free for an advertiser to send a single e-mail message to a single recipient, but sending that same e-mail to 1000 recipients would cost him 1000 times as much. A 2002 experiment with this kind of usage-based e-mail pricing found that it caused senders to spend more effort targeting their messages to recipients who would find them relevant, thus shifting the cost of deciding whether a given e-mail message is relevant from the recipient to the sender (Kraut 2002).

Closely related is the idea of selling “interrupt rights,” or small fees for the right to demand one’s attention (Fahlman 2002). The cost of these rights could vary according to the interruptee: interrupt rights for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company would presumably be extraordinarily expensive, while those of a high school student might be lower. Costs could also vary for an individual depending on context, perhaps rising during the busy holiday season and falling during the dog days of summer. Interruptees could decline to collect their fees from friends, family, and other welcome interrupters.

Another idea in this vein is the creation of “attention bonds,” small warranties that some information will not be a waste of the recipient’s time, placed into escrow at the time of sending (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004). Like the granters of interrupt rights, receivers could cash in their bonds to signal to the sender that a given communication was a waste of their time or elect not to cash them in to signal that more communication would be welcome.

Supporters of attention markets for controlling spam claim that their solutions are superior to the alternatives for managing uses of information systems on which there is no consensus on the question of whether it is pollution or not. For example, the use of e-mail or text messages for rallying political support or by non-profit charitable organizations may be considered spam by some users but legitimate use by others. Laws against spam put the power to make this decision in the hands of government, while technological solutions like filtering technologies put it in the hands of private companies or technologically savvy users. A market-based solution, on the other hand, allows the possibility of individual negotiation over the worth of a given message rather than a unilateral decision by a controlling party (Loder, Van Alstyne & Wash 2004, p.10). Such negotiation itself consumes attention and carries with it an attention cost, though.

As search engines have become the primary means for finding and accessing information on the web, high rankings in the results for certain queries have become valuable commodities, due to the ability of search engines to focus searchers’ attention. Like other information systems, web search is vulnerable to pollution: “Because the Web environment contains profit seeking ventures, attention getting strategies evolve in response to search engine algorithms” (Page 1998). It is estimated that successful exploitation of such strategies, known as web spam, is a potential $4.5 billion per year business (Singhal 2004, p.16).

Since most major search engines now rely on some form of PageRank (recursive counting of hyperlinks to a site) to determine search result rankings, a gray market in the creation and trading of hyperlinks has emerged. Participants in this market engage in a variety of practices known as link spamming, link farming, and reciprocal linking.

However, as opponents of the “nofollow” attribute point out, while this solution may make it incrementally easier for search engines to detect link spam, it does not appreciably change the incentive structure for link spammers unless 100% of existing systems are upgraded to support the standard: as long as some critical mass of spammable sites exists, link spam will continue. Furthermore, the “nofollow” attribute does nothing to combat link farming or reciprocal linking. There is also a philosophical question of whether the links of site commentators (as opposed to site owners) should be treated as “second-class,” leading to the claim that the attribute “heists commentators’ earned attention” (NoNoFollow.net 2005).

Another issue, similar to the issue discussed above of whether or not to consider political e-mail campaigns as spam, is what to do about politically motivated link campaigns or Google bombs (Tatum 2005). Currently the major search engines do not treat these as web spam, but this is a decision made unilaterally by private companies. There is no opportunity for negotiation over the question of what is an appropriate use of attention expressed through hyperlinking. It remains to be seen[vague] whether a market-based approach might provide more flexible handling of these gray areas.

The paid inclusion model, as well as more pervasive advertising networks like Yahoo! Publisher Network and Google’s AdSense, work by treating consumer attention as the property of the search engine (in the case of paid inclusion) or the publisher (in the case of advertising networks). This is somewhat different from the anti-spam uses of property rights in attention, which treat an individual’s attention as his or her own property.

See the original post here:

Attention economy – Wikipedia

The Venus Project

What is The Venus Project?

The Venus Project is an organization that proposes a feasible plan of action for social change, one that works towards a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative []

The plans of The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities directed toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all. Through []

Global problems faced by mankind today are impacting individuals and nations rapidly. Climate change, famine, war, epidemics of deadly diseases and environmental pollution contribute to the long list of global []

The history of The Venus Project offers a unique perspective into Jacque Frescos life. From the early years when he worked at Wright Field to the time he and his []

Visit Roxanne Meadows live at the Research Center in Florida.

Participate in a Seminar lecture and go on a tour around the research center.

Get together with Roxanne and get all your questions about The Venus Project and a Resource Based Economy answered.

There are many ways to help The Venus Project. First and foremost is to become aware of this new direction and learn about it as much as you can.

Later you can become a volunteer and help to spread the word and take part in official projects.

Donations to our cause are also very much appreciated.

2017 The Venus Project | All rights reserved unless otherwise noted.

The rest is here:

The Venus Project

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community – HuffPost

I started my professional career in the federal government, in the U.S. EPA. I was proud of our work in Washington and proud of our country. In the years since, I always thought our national government was capable of doing better, but mostly considered its dysfunction to be the result of conflicting interests and the role of money in politics and the media. I looked elsewhere for progress and found it everywhere. Then came President Trump: For most of the past seven months Ive found the federal government disheartening and threatening, but unsurprising. Last week all of that was replaced with shame. I was deeply ashamed of the behavior of Donald Trump as he made excuses for the racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and sexist fiends marching in Virginia. It was the worst behavior I have ever seen from an American president. The president is our head of state and our head of government. He is both king and prime minister. As the head of state, his job is to represent the American people and their values. Last week he failed in performing that function; he abdicated his position as head of state.

What do the rest of us do in the face of this onslaught? He is the duly elected president, and although how long he remains in office is difficult to predict, his legitimacy as president is real. Last week we saw a little bit of what we do. Corporate leaders ran away from his advisory councils and even Republican elected leaders took him on. There will be more of this to come because Donald Trumps greatest talent is calling attention to himself. He will do whatever it takes to get noticed and most of us cannot help but watch what he is doing. However, I am coming to the conclusion that our energies would be better spent elsewhere. The federal government is too important to ignore, and so we need to continue to stay engaged, but a higher proportion of our effort should be devoted to our communities, businesses, institutions, cities and states.

The school year will soon begin and millions of American children will return to classrooms. Teachers will engage with students, coaches will inspire kids, and parents will cheer from the sidelines. Our hospitals will heal the sick with technology that continues to progress, smartphones will provide us with even more distractions than they do today, and new technology will help move us toward a renewable resource-based economy. In my home city, teenagers will help a mom carry her babys stroller up the subway stairs, someone will carry groceries to an apartment for an elderly neighbor, and people will see something and say something. We will try to keep each other safe and secure in a world that really is better than the media wants us to believe.

It also means that we need to stop waiting for the federal government to come to our rescue and fund the aging infrastructure that is crumbling in our communities. We will need to generate our own revenues to maintain subways, build bridges and tunnels, repave roads, build water and waste systems, modernize our electric grid, and expand air and seaports. This will require taxes, user fees, and public-private partnerships. Investing in the future means that we defer some gratification today so our children can benefit in the future. Extreme income inequality will not be addressed by the federal tax code and so whatever adjustments can be made will take place by the market and by state and local actions.

The absence of a federal government will make it more difficult for poorer states to invest in the future, unless they can develop a strategy that attracts capital and wealth from the outside. Here in New York City, we have the wealth needed to invest, but are suffering from political posturing and preening by our mayor and governor. Our need for a well-maintained subway system is now being held hostage to their national political ambitions. But despite their dispute, New Yorkers have the ability to generate the funds we need and our attention should be focused on crafting a deal that allows our mass transit system to be maintained and expanded.

While racists may march with torches in Virginia, we see the new multi-racial, multi-national America taking shape on our sidewalks, in our school yards, in social gatherings, and in all of our public spaces. Despite the efforts to turn back the clock to an imaginary America, our demography and mass social change have made this entire nation the gorgeous mosaic that my colleague Professor David Dinkins called New York City a quarter century ago. Most people have friends from different parts of the world and of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Most of our family stories are immigration stories. All four of my grandparents were immigrants. The global economy and world wide web have led to increased global travel and immigration. As a nation that still has a history of welcoming immigrants, America has become more diverse over the past half century. According to DVera Cohn and Andrea Caumont of the Pew Research Center:

Americans are more racially and ethnically diverse than in the past, and the U.S. is projected to be even more diverse in the coming decades. By 2055, the U.S. will not have a single racial or ethnic majority. Much of this change has been (and will be) driven by immigration. Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S. in the past 50 years, mostly from Latin America and Asia. Today, a near-record 14% of the countrys population is foreign born compared with just 5% in 1965. Over the next five decades, the majority of U.S. population growth is projected to be linked to new Asian and Hispanic immigration. American attitudes about immigration and diversity are supportive of these changes for the most part. More Americans say immigrants strengthen the country than say they burden it, and most say the U.S.s increasing ethnic diversity makes it a better place to live.

The demonstrators in Virginia were seeking to resist this emerging reality and prevent this change from occurring, but most Americans and most communities embrace diversity. Immigration presents challenges, but American communities have always been built by people from different places coming together, finding common values and sharing the ideas, beliefs, food and customs they brought from their former home. Mayor Dinkins image of the gorgeous mosaic is appropriate here. Close up, each tile in the mosaic is distinct and identifiable, but when you step back and see how the tiles fit together you see a beautiful picture that has its own grace and logic. That is the American community that most of us see every day. It may not be visible from the penthouse of Trump Tower or the ballroom of Mar-a-Lago, but it is both the American dream and, for the most part, the American reality.

The recent effort to focus immigration on highly skilled workers misses the point. Yes, we want scientists and engineers from other nations. But we also want ambition, drive, daring and leadership. My grandfather, Ben Cohen, was a baker and a carpenter. He was not well-educated. But all five of his children turned out to be successful professionals. Wed like more Albert Einsteins but we need more Ben Cohens. In the coming decades, this nation can maintain its dynamism, as it has in the past, by being the last best hope of humanity. By being a gathering place for those yearning to be free. That was not the spirit of those carrying torches and chanting disgusting slogans, but it is the American spirit at its best. Despite the chaos that has enveloped the White House, we can take comfort in the day-to-day functioning of our American communities.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day’s most important news.

Read more:

Resisting White House Chaos By Building Community – HuffPost

Opinion: UBC erases boundaries between engineering and health – Vancouver Sun

Mark Ansermino, left, and Guy Dumont were working on a device in 2005 to aid people monitoring patients during surgery. Ward Perrin / Vancouver Sun

A deceptively simple device invented at the University of B.C. is saving lives in the worlds most impoverished places.

Called the Phone Oximeter, it clips onto a persons fingertip and is connected by wire to a smartphones audio port. By measuring blood-oxygen levels and heart and breathing rates with unprecedented simplicity, portability and affordability, its enabling easier diagnosis of illness in Mozambique, Pakistan and Uganda.

How it came to be at UBC reveals the magic of universities.

Fifteen years ago, electrical engineer Guy Dumont, an expert in creating intelligent automated systems, met Mark Ansermino, an anesthesiologist who wanted to improve measurement of vital signs during surgery. From that first encounter between two complementary faculty members, a string of inventions followed.

The Phone Oximeters genesis at a university was no accident. UBC, like so many of its peer institutions, attracts experts in diverse fields. Brought together into a larger community, they sometimes share ideas and wind up doing things they could never achieve or even dream of achieving on their own.

But when that lightning does strike, its often by accident or the result of occasional get-togethers. If only we could make such interactions a regular feature on our campuses, imagine the ingenuity that would spring forth.

Now we are now doing just that, with UBCs latest creation: a school of biomedical engineering.

This new cluster of faculty and students, a joint venture of the faculties of medicine and applied science, will break down antiquated academic boundaries. We want to replicate many times over the genius of the Phone Oximeter applying an engineering mindset to disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

That could mean medical devices like the Phone Oximeter. But it also means extending engineering into realms that most people have a hard time grasping: the splicing of genes, the rearrangement of proteins and the cultivation of stem cells, which can be coaxed into repairing or even replacing damaged tissues or organs.

This is a squishier world than many engineers are used to. But its governed by the same physical principles that all engineering students must master. And its just as yielding to their quantitative approach and creative design skills, which offer new solutions to societys major health challenges, including cancer, neurological disease, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

UBC is the first university in Western Canada to recognize the importance of this burgeoning field with a school of its own. And we are doing it at a propitious time, as B.C. diversifies its resource-based economy by cultivating a vibrant tech sector, and as the province joins the University of Washington in creating the Cascadia Urban Analytics Cooperative, emulating the success of such regional tech hubs as Silicon Valley, North Carolinas Research Triangle and Bostons Route 128 Corridor.

To fulfil even part of that tech-based vision, higher education must position itself several steps ahead by preparing students to readily enter that economy from the moment they graduate, and to play leading roles in both established companies and new ventures. Playing catch-up isnt an option we need to cultivate the talent now or risk having that vision wither for lack of local talent.

The Phone Oximeter, invented at the University of B.C., clips onto a persons fingertip and is connected by wire to a smartphones audio port. By measuring blood-oxygen levels and heart and breathing rates with unprecedented simplicity, portability and affordability, its enabling easier diagnosis of illness in Mozambique, Pakistan and Uganda. Handout / PNG

Clearly, there is a demand for such training. The faculty of applied science started offering masters degrees and doctorates in biomedical engineering a mere seven years ago, and applications have increased steadily to almost 200 in 2016.

The new school will provide those students expected to number about 90 this year with a distinct, high-profile home, signalling to future students our commitment to be a leader in this field. In the years ahead we hope to extend the talent pipeline even further by offering bachelors degrees in biomedical engineering as well.

That higher profile will also help attract the most promising or sought-after biomedical engineering faculty. In fact, it already has: Peter Zandstra, most recently of the University of Toronto, has joined UBC to become the schools first director.

Zandstra wont need much help finding his way around he spent five years at UBC earning his doctorate in biotechnology and chemical engineering. But we recruited him for his ingenuity in growing stem cells, his mathematical modelling to predict how stem cells behave and how they can be controlled, and his success in generating human tissue for drug testing or treatment. On top of all that, he has proven leadership skills, honed from his experience steering large academic research groups and startup companies.

Joining him in the months and years ahead will be seven other new faculty members, along with 20 current faculty members jointly appointed from their current departments, including electrical engineer Tim Salcudean, who has proudly ignored the obsolete divisions that once separated him from his medical colleagues.

Salcudean is advancing two innovations that have already transformed patient care: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. He is making those technologies more revealing by bringing digital analysis to images that are now mostly eyeballed. He is also making them more useful by superimposing MRI and ultrasound images onto magnified images of a surgical field, so surgeons can see underneath the tissue on which theyre operating, and thus spot patches of cancer that would normally be hidden.

These arent an academics theoretical musings. Thanks to UBCs partnerships with the provinces health system, Salcudean has been able to team up with UBC urologist Peter Black to successfully test ultrasound and MRI image-guided techniques on 27 patients with prostate cancer. Based on those results, there are plans for more.

We cant simply leave those kinds of advances to the random happenstance of the occasional symposium or accidental meeting. The stakes in terms of lives saved or quality of life are too high.

Our new school of biomedical engineering will bring health scientists, clinicians and engineers together on a daily basis and provide them with the space and the tools to collaborate. Just as important, it will bring graduate students and medical students into that collaboration to learn from it, emulate it and, we hope, take it in directions that we havent yet imagined.

Dermot Kelleher is dean of the faculty of medicine and James Olson is interim dean of the faculty of applied science at the University of B.C.

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? Wed like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.

Read the rest here:

Opinion: UBC erases boundaries between engineering and health – Vancouver Sun

PNG encouraged to end dependence on gas, oil and gold – Radio New Zealand

Transcript

PAUL FLANAGAN: Arguably for too long PNG has placed too much emphasis on getting the resource part of its economy going well. So focussing on large LNG projects, or copper and gold projects. But that really hasn’t delivered improvements in well being for the vast majority of people in PNG. An alternative approach is to take a more people focussed development line which would try and build on its extraordinary cultural diversity, the strength of its ecosystems, and use that as a path to tap into the incredible potential of its people to have a different development to what PNG has faced previously.

DON WISEMAN: Why is it that there has been so little return from oil, gas and minerals?

PL: A long term feature of countries that go down a path of resource dependence is the somewhat well known Resource Curse. And the Resource Curse comes through in a few different ways. In some ways it is the focus in development towards those big projects rather than those that are more inclusive. It comes through because there is more opportunity for corruption and graft that can come through those big projects. But a more hidden and sinister one is that it tends to lead to overvalued exchange rates. It pushes up the exchange rate which means it’s good for people importing in urban areas but it means a large part of the economy that could be otherwise exporting things that might be tapping into more local, cultural traditions. You know local PNG fashions and things like that – they’re priced out of the international market just because that country is exporting some much LNG and gold and other produce. So dealing with the exchange rate is going to be a very credible and one of the simplest tools one can take to try and improve development outcomes.

DW: You’ve talked about how the effect of this focus on developing mineral resources and oil and gas, has been the creation of dual economies in a sense.

PL: Very much dual economies and it tends to be there is not much linkage between the traditional economy and the resource-based economy. Now PNG could have a really strong agricultural sector, one would think, in terms of exporting things such as coffee and cocoa to much greater levels. But they face price competition and the incentives for people who front up to sell coffee at the local factory, they don’t actually get that much kina for each US dollar, once again because of this overvalued exchange rate that can sort of really hinder development. What can really build up the linkages between those parts of the economy is if the tax regime is taking enough tax out of the resource sector and distributing that back into the local economy through improved infrastructure or through improved health and education outcomes. We know PNG is actually taxing its resource sector quite lightly, relative to that faced by most other countries. So once again that is an area that can be looked at. But that will take probably 5-10 years to put into effect because of binding agreements already with existing projects.

DW: So in the current circumstances, the economy is a grim state, how do you get the exchange rate down?

PL: In some ways that can be a straight decision from the Bank of Papua New Guinea, just in the same way as when it appreciated the currency by nearly 20 percent back in June 2014, it could decide overnight to depreciate the currency once again by 20 percent. One has to be careful with that because there would be potentially imported inflationary impacts and one needs to ensure that staples such as rice and that don’t jump through the roof immediately. And there can be some action taken to try and bring those price increases through time. Any of these sort of adjustments are difficult in terms of their impacts but in terms of putting them into place, fixing up the exchange rate is much, much easier than trying to do something such as Budget repair, which would involve other difficult things. Such as looking at tax increases on consumers or wage earners. Bringing more targets as to where you cut expenditure, more options there, but once again some pretty difficult choices because of some capacity and other limits that PNG faces. So it is always a world of hard choices given how far PNG has gone down this slippery economic slopes, but there are mechanisms to pick things up again and one of the best and easiest of those is improving the exchange rate, making it more competitive, allowing PNG to really enter into the Asia-Pacific century.

More:

PNG encouraged to end dependence on gas, oil and gold – Radio New Zealand

Women drive Sadc integration agenda – The Herald

Nyarai Kampilipili and Kizito SikukaCorrespondents The event had nothing to do with the annual Womens Month that is celebrated here in South Africa every August to remember the sacrifices and contribution of women to the struggle for social equality.

Rather, the sight of Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and Dr Stergomena Lawrence Tax addressing the media ahead of the 37th SADC Summit in South Africa was a clear affirmation that women continue to make a positive contribution towards deepening regional integration and sustainable development in southern Africa.

Nkoana-Mashabane is the incoming chairperson of the SADC Council of Ministers, while Dr Tax is the Executive Secretary of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

In fact, Dr Tax is the first woman to assume the top post at the SADC Secretariat, and since her appointment at a summit in August 2013 in Lilongwe, Malawi has exhibited that performance is key and not gender in holding key decision-making positions.

Based in Gaborone, Botswana, the SADC Secretariat is the principal executive institution of SADC, responsible for strategic planning, facilitation and coordination and management of all SADC programmes, activities and projects. The SADC Council of Ministers oversees the functioning and development of SADC by ensuring that regional policies are properly implemented.

In this regard, both Nkoana-Mashabane, who is the South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister and Dr Tax carry the responsibility of making sure the benefits of belonging to a shared community in southern Africa continue to be enjoyed and impact on the lives of SADC citizens.

During her one-year tenure as Council of Ministers chair, Nkoana-Mashabane is expected to provide guidance to the SADC Secretariat on the implementation of regional programmes, while Dr Tax will ensure that the decisions of the 37th SADC Summit are implemented over the next 12 months.

This will include making sure that the momentum built since 2014 in terms of the implementation of the industrialisation agenda is maintained as part of regional efforts to transform from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based one that is able to add value to its own natural resources and compete strongly on global markets.

SADC has over the years made significant progress towards promoting gender equality and equity in the region.

In fact, gender equality is firmly rooted in the Declaration and Treaty that established the shared community of SADC, and member states fully realise that equality and empowerment of both women and men is crucial for the attainment of sustainable development.

This is clearly reflected in the constitutions of most SADC countries that provide for the creation of legal frameworks that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and other differences.

Some countries have also legislated affirmative action and quota systems that guarantee the participation and representation of women in political and other decision-making positions.

According to the SADC Gender and Development Monitor 2016, four member states are among the top 20 countries in the world with the highest number of women in parliament and other key decision-making positions.

These are Seychelles, South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique, followed closely by Angola, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

In the education sector, gender gaps in literacy levels continue to close, with Botswana, Lesotho, Seychelles and Swaziland having higher literacy rates for women compared to men.

The Revised SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, which was approved at the 36th SADC Summit held in the Kingdom of Swaziland in August 2016, aims to align the protocol with provisions of other instruments such as those relating to the Sustainable Development Goals, Agenda 2063, and the SADC Industrialisation Strategy and Roadmap.

The revised protocol provides for the empowerment of women, elimination of discrimination and attainment of gender equality and equity through enactment of gender-responsive legislation and implementation of policies, programmes and projects.

The 37th SADC Heads of State and Government Summit is scheduled for 19-20 August, and will deliberate on a wide range of issues, including exploring ways of harnessing the potential of the private sector to contribute to the industrialisation agenda and sustainable economic development in the region.

The theme for the summit is Partnering with the private sector in developing industry and regional value-chains.

At the summit, South African President Jacob Zuma will assume the rotating SADC chair from King Mswati III of Swaziland.

Prior to the SADC Summit, there will be a Double Troika meeting on August 18 to discuss the general political situation in the region. sardc.net

Read more:

Women drive Sadc integration agenda – The Herald


12345...10...