How soon will a moneyless society change the way we percieve each other?

[TheBigDog]

There is a giant difference in efficiency and and quality delivered by volunteers versus trained and practiced professionals. There are anecdotal situations of volunteers being superior, but it is just that, inconsequentially small anecdotal examples.

A society built on specialization cannot be run on a volunteer basis. It would lose all continuity and reliability, and soon nobody would seek specialists anymore. That brings us back to hunter gatherer society with no industry, and slow moving innovation and science. Part of specialization is job security. Devaluing professionals is the first step back to the stone age.

Bill

[kmarinas86]

The only way you can have have a moneyless society is when money becomes redundant. If you could get a Big Mac for 2 cents, travel to LA for 10 dollars, buy a house for 50 bucks, and buy a cruise ship for 3 grand - where the average personal income is $120,000 - then you can have a moneyless society run by volunteering. But until then, no way.

[orbsycli]

Money stabilizes our population.
It's inevitable, as weird as it is.
Gives us credit for our time
like wisdom
unlike wisdom

[orbsycli]

we're riding one of those into a crescendo

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Peacemaker,

I would like to know how to receive a copy of the 65 page document that is in question?

But I am already in support. I would think everyone arguing against your proposal would hope for a world of such magnitude. To help encourage you, I would like you to know that this idea is being discussed more and more everyday. There isn't a day that passes that the truths of our potential aren't discussed around me. A new age of humans is already imerging. Realism and idealism are merging together to create a new for ideology. All it takes is time and effort. All we need is self-sacrifice and self-denial.

The biggest argument is a valid one, though. You can not make people want to do right by their fellow man. They have to want it. The saddest issue here is that it will work if we make it work. To say that it can't because we won't doesn't disprove the idea, it only creates a problem. And problems have solutions.

Money is the measurement of power one has. It isn't the only measure, but it is the greatest indicator. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Humans created ways to measure quantity and quality in order to measure themselves, to feel better and therefore safer. We did this when we were still basically instinctual. It would seem that everyone would want to evolve farther, and we have to leave our animalistic side behind. We can not act on fear anymore. We come to point of trust. But how do we come to this point? Especially with people who only wish to prove that peace is not possible.

Non est vivere sed valere vita est.
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis.
Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis.

Einar Waldun

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

I would like to know how to receive a copy of the 65 page document that is in question?

If you go to this post (#59) in this thread, you'll find that thanks to the contribution of InfiniteNow, there's a downloadable Word Document of the proposal.

Definitely an interesting read, and generated lots of controversy above!

How can anyone be against peace,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Here's the properly formatted version:

http://hypography.com/forums/184209-post59.html

[Zythryn]

I think the biggest issue I have is the subject line has it backwards.

How soon will a moneyless society change the way we percieve each other?

This will never happen. Instead we need the way we percieve each other to change first, then a moneyless society could emerge.
Now, how you get the majority of the world to percieve one another with peace and brotherhood, that I just don't know

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I think the biggest issue I have is the subject line has it backwards.

This will never happen. Instead we need the way we percieve each other to change first, then a moneyless society could emerge.
Now, how you get the majority of the world to percieve one another with peace and brotherhood, that I just don't know

Hi Z
I have to differ here. The existence of money, along with the customs, practices and vices it has helped to engender in humanity is the main reason why humans view each other with mistrust.

In our modern society, there is no real reason why these prejudices and the misunderstanding and deep suspicions about other members of our race which we currently hold should continue to exist.

Remove money and property, and the laws designed to enshrine them in our existence and we remove the vast majority of the basic reasons for our current misery.

So I contend, as I originally did, that we have to get rid of these obstacles to our progress BEFORE the scales can fall from our eyes, and we can finally percieve each other as potential friends and lovers.

The point has been made, in many posts on this thread, that we will never achieve world peace under present conditions. There has to be a complete change in our philosophy to end the bad stuff we currently inflict on each other.

This philosophy now exists. I have formulated it.

Just because you don't understand how it works now, doesn't mean that you won't understand it when it happens. You didn't know how to read until someone showed you. This is a similar idea.

The trick is to present a universally acceptable philosophy to humanity that EVERYONE will benefit from. One that only curtails the right of humans to violate each other and our environment.

Does that sound like a difficult thing for you, personally, to achieve?

Please, get positive. Open your mind and have faith in humanity.
Peacemaker.

[HydrogenBond]

Money is useful for trade, but it can also be used to create a subjective boost in IQ and EQ (emotional quotient). Let me give an example, say we had two people who were essentially the same in IQ and EQ. We give them both a project to build a shelter. To one of the persons we give $1M. The person without the money will have to use ingenuity and might come up with a crude cardboard shack. The person with the money can ask around and get a good builder to build him a nice house.

If we asked people passing by, which of the two has the higher IQ and EQ, almost everyone would assume the one with the nice house. He may even tell the passers by, that he had fun building this nice house, even though technically he didn't build anything. He merely leased the IQ of others, with money, and is recieving the subjective credit. If he is not grounded, enough feedback can give him an inflated sense of worth.

I am not equating money with IQ and EQ on a rational scale, since there are smart and mature people at all income levels. But based on the IQ and EQ you start with, money can be used to recieve a subjective boost. It is sort of the same affect as wearing designer clothes. It not only makes others look at you in a more positive way, but could make one subjectively feel a certain sense of poise that could cause one to feel more secure, helping to temporarily inflate the objective EQ numbers.

Say there was a natural disaster, that disrupted culture, such that money had no value. There are no logistics and people are too busy trying to survive to lease out their IQ and EQ for subjective inflation. At this point, we have a more objective scenario. There will be people of all incomes who have the IQ needed for survival, as well as people of all incomes with the EQ needed to keep a level head.

In this scenario, one will not end up with the same subjective IQ and EQ distribution. The builder who normally leases out his IQ, may use it to build a nice shelter for himself and his family. The person who normally leases IQ to have someone do that for them, may try to buy the house, so he can keep up the subjectivity he has grown accustomed to. But since money is of no use, the builder may not want to sell. One possible solution, is to get a gun and force the builder to give you his house. Force was the original subjective enhancement. One didn't have to know how to do anything, but one could sort of lease, with fear, whatever they needed. If you needed your ego EQ boosted you could force someone to kiss butt.

If very poor fourth world countries, force is often used so the leaders can get subjective enhancements using the power of fear. They also gather all the wealth, so others can not use money and compete for any subjective enhancement. Monarchies used the same principles of force and most of the wealth so only a small fraction of people were subjectively boosted. Every now and then an actual person with high IQ-EQ would lead. But most of the time, it was more neurotic due to subjectivity.

If you look at the leader of North Korea, he is smart enough to keep his culture poor. He controls the army and most of the wealth. Even if the first world boosted their economy, he would sabbatage it, since if others get the subjective boost, he would have trouble leadering. He may be an average Joe, but with the dual boost, he is a world leader. He may be a good example, of subjectivity versus objecitivty.

One problem with money is many people feel that if they can just get enough money, they can skip the efford needed to boost their IQ and EQ in a rational type of way. One only has to focus on making money, instead of a bunch of tasks needed get the objective affect. But humans are more subjective than objective, such that this action is usually given higher subjective value. Even in science, having the biggest budget makes one the expert. One can be good at science, but if they excel in the politics of getting resources, they can become the authority.

There is nothing wrong with money and many of the smartest people have plenty of money, but the subjective boost due to money does not quarentee all best objective EQ and IQ people are at the top. For example, political campaigns often come down to battle money, since it can be used to lease the IQ and EQ of others, to subjective boost your own IQ and EQ with clever adds. These hired hands can also be used to subjectively lower the IQ and EQ of your opponet with mudslinging. If money was not part of the equation, then it would come down to ideas and leadership, which would reflect objective measures of IQ and EQ. The system is not perfect; but money is stilll better than using force to define who will be deemed the person with the most subjective value.