]You cannot compare the conditions of "survival during war" where everything is at stake and the "comforts of peace" in terms of urgency and drive for development. Isn't there this famous saying "necessity is the mother of invention"?
You can compare anything, but that doesn't mean it has to be a fair comparison.
What I did, however, was not a comparison - it was an example of how things can be sped up through certain conditions.
Actually, TVP concept is that it's going to happen after the current world society collapses - and in such a scenario - I don't think the WW2 is a bad example of similar circumstances. In fact, I think it might be a much stronger motivator.
However, for my own concept - it would depend on the motivation on the team that was assigned to research, plan and implement. It would not be about making money - so I can imagine some passionate people being highly motivated.
People need to have the proper motivation and focus in order for them to work hard to achieve the desired goals. This is something that I criticised in your model since this crucial element is lacking IMO. If I understand your view of human nature in such a world correctly, you will then propably say that people will do so out of a sense of responsibility and a desire to give to the community. But if so, then I consider you guilty of putting too much faith in humanity.
I did say personal responsibility - but that's just one aspect of why you evolve yourself. I think it's a human trait to WANT to evolve and grow, it's just not particularly easy in our current society.
I think people would be a LOT more productive if they could do basically what they wanted to do without being told they're wrong or deviants - but that doesn't go for all people. But the people who'd be likely to voluntarily join a project like this - especially in the early stages (where there'd be a LOT of work involved) - would be much more likely to contribute.
See above. You claim that motivations coming from the "interior" are sufficient but I think that is a very fragile basis to guarantee a long term union. I would rather focus on providing a proper exterior motivation.
Where have I claimed interior motivators are sufficient? I just said that society doesn't HAVE to be the only motivator.
What makes you so sure about that?
That's because I think a lot of what people place a higher value on today, is based on a society with excessive resource scarcity. We value rare things - because they represent the "kind of thing" we can't get our hands on. Especially when we know that there are people starving and dying due to not having access to even the most basic of needs.
For instance, I don't think it's human nature to consider a really fancy car worth a thousand times more than a cheap car - despite the fact that they both share the exact same basic functions. I think that's based on conditioning and false values.
I assume that even in your world certain individuals will still be admired for their particular achievements. Wouldn't that alone lead to some form of "perceived rank" among the people?
For this world to work, we have to understand that all human beings are born equal - and that they're not in control of their early development which shapes them. If someone is born smart - then it's not because he made himself smart. So, why should we admire him? If a woman is born beautiful - then is she more worthy of admiration? It's not like she created herself, is it?
This whole concept of admiration and idolatry is based on irrational perceptions. I consider it a very harmful disease of the modern world society.
People should not accomplish or achieve because they want admiration. They should do so because they want to improve the world for everyone.
That is the very foundation of the society - and the very reason resources should be distributed evenly.
It was about your avatar. I mean, what the hell is it?
Ah, that's my dog Balder - chilling in his basket