The problem is not that scientists will disagree in some indefinite future. They disagree right now regarding many current research topics. One thing is to build a machine do some mechanical or data processing work; a completely different thing is to make a machine to "think" for us. How should the machine think? Should all current topics and lines of research be programmed into it? How would it then decide among them? The scientific method does not yield truths written in stone; it yields models which may or may not stand firm with each test they are put through. And again, you would have a tiny minority of people (science experts) effectively deciding for everyone else.

RBE is presented as a solution to such diverse problems as scarcity, inequality, non-sustainability, environmental hazard, inefficiency, political corruption, ... It is an extensive list of wonders that RBE pretends to solve. Neither of us had talked about perfection until you did. I've just been pointing out what I consider to be design flaws and not well-thought ideas of how RBE can solve all these difficult, complex and broad problems.

When I said that anarchy is totally unfeasible and utopian as of now and in the foreseeable future, I thought that would be self-evident and that I would not need to elaborate on that. Anarchy requires an unrealistic level of homogeneity within the members of a society with respect to shared ethical standards, intellectual heritage and vision for the future. There are an estimated 7 500 000 000 people in the world. Each person has his or her own thinking, interests, motivations, goals, fears, values, etc... People can be highly cooperative and peaceful. People can be ill-intended and harmful. They can be lazy, they can be judgemental, they can be pious, they can be ruthless... They can be whatever you might think of. How do you enforce order and functionality in an anarchist model with 7 500 000 000 different people?

The picture is similar with RBE, because it presupposes that everyone must voluntarily adhere to the same principles. When was the last time in human history that you saw us even coming close to such status? For many shortcomings that existing democratic regimes might have, they have this very nice feature that different interest groups with different views may share the political stage and negotiate compromised answers to society's issues. This is something which is part of democratic systems by design. Of course, for this potential to actually be realized, you need a well informed and politically conscious population which actively participates in the political life of their societies. Many existing democracies are just make believe, while others are completely polarized in two big parties that rig the system and alternate in power. There are, however, some good examples of relatively well functioning democratic systems, namely the Scandinavian democracies, where you find higher levels of literacy, public participation, economic performance, environmental consciousness and social justice.

The kind of solution RBE proposes is an idealization, just like anarchy is. It's as if I asked you to compute the volume of a chicken, and you started by assuming that the chicken is spherical, when it clearly is not. Assuming ideal conditions, any system has a tremendous potential to function well. It is due to unrealistic prerequisites that I find RBE unfeasible, just as I find anarchy unfeasible. You already have an emergent system that constantly changes (maybe not as fast as desirable, but it has been changing quite a lot over the centuries).

Finally, I'd like to point out that you are absolutely right about one thing: I have not proposed any alternative solution myself, and yet I keep criticizing RBE. While I do not agree that "criticizing something without offering intelligent solution has little value", it would certainly be better if another solution would be proposed to be compared with RBE. And here's why I haven't proposed another solution: a) I don't believe in radical and miraculous solutions for complex and longstanding problems, especially if they are sociological in nature, because it takes time and effort for mentalities to evolve and change; b) I believe that many current democratic societies provide better than ever conditions for people to get educated, to promote social and environmental awareness, to come together for common causes, to freely evaluate the performance of institutions and engage in their remodeling, to actively participate in the construction of society's structures, to be innovative, to establish and pursue one's own goals, etc.; c) and finally, I think that the social and economic structures are a reflection of societies' collective views and expectations, meaning that if you want to fundamentally change the system, you must first fundamentally change its building blocks (people), and not the other way around.

I don't have the ability to suggest a better solution than living and acting according to one's principles while sharing them with the people with whom one crosses paths through one's example, in the hopes that other people might resonate with your views and learn something from them. And what you are doing, trying to inform people about RBE, falls perfectly into this description. I truly respect this attitude of yours. But then comes the part where, after you expose your views to the world, the world analyses them through its own eyes and may like it or not. That's where I come in. My thinking leads me to find RBE to be at fault in many aspects, and I share this back with you. Then you share your thoughts back with me, and this goes on until one of three things happen: a) one of us provides enough justification for the other one to more or less adopt the same view; b) we get tired of the back and forth and quit discussing, with each one maybe a bit better informed but ultimately with the same views as before; c) or we converge to a compromise position, where the merits of both views are synthesized into a third new view which didn't previously exist for the two of us.

Now rest assured, when I come back to comment on your further articles on this topic, I will make an effort to add some alternative ideas instead of just criticizing RBE. I may not be able to do it for the reasons I have mentioned above, but I will certainly try. And I hope you aren't discouraged by my criticism, quite the contrary. If anything, I hope it motivates you to better develop your ideas, to better articulate them, and to better discuss them with followers and critics alike. I'd like to end by repeating that it's a pleasure discussing these ideas with you. I maybe be skeptical, but I'm not closed minded. Let's keep in touch!