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

[Zythryn]

I'll be specific if you will
How are people going to exchange for the items they need/want?
If I build clocks and need a new stove, how do I get the new stove?

And, as I am sure you will answer clearly and concisely I will address your question.
Specifically, some individuals will be greedy for/desire status. Which can take the form of ownership/power over land/the opposite sex/artwork/etc.
Others will simply desire what someone else has. A larger house, access to higher education, rare artwork, more or fancier clothes.
Still others might desire more free time, or more travel.

Now, as I said earlier, if you can do away with any desires of humanity I suppose you can do away with money.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

I have been away from this thread for quite a few months…

Welcome back to hypography, Peacemaker! Even by those who profoundly disagree with you, you’ve been missed.

Given your dedication to the goal of a moneyless society, I am curious if you’re familiar with the fiction and non-fiction writing of Cory Doctrow and Charles Stross, both of whom are known for extensive writing, mostly in a fictional mode, about moneyless society. I recommend them highly. Their major novels are “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” and “Accelerando” (which I mentioned 14 months ago, in this post of this thread), both of which are, of course, available in electronic form for free under a CCL, though for those ideologically opposed to such things, paper copies can be had for the usual old-fashioned money.

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

… now and world events have, as I predicted, proved once again that the people who control money cannot be trusted with that task.

I don’t believe any serious student has ever claimed that history, ancient through current, has ever shown that trust was ever more than provisional, for any medium of exchange, from pure communalism to barter to money. However, I don’t see that history up to the moment has done other than demonstrate that money is a very resilient medium, even in the absence of high levels of trust. In the large volumes of news and commentary about the recent bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers financial services company and bankruptcy and US Federal Reserve Bank takeover/rescue of the AIG insurance company, I’ve seen no mention whatever of eliminating money. Rather than showing defects in the idea of money, crises such as these appear to show its utility.

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Greed is not about money, it is about resources.

I would take this a step further: greed is not just about resources, but about scarcity of resources. Greed for resources that are abundant is practically nonexistent.

Originally Posted by Zythryn

If you do away with 'money' what ever replaces it will be what greedy people covet.

Agreed.

The central idea of post-scarcity economics is that some money-like means of exchange will exists as long as, but not only as long as, it is useful, and that it is only useful when the demand for essential commodities exceeds or nearly equals supplies. The term is actually an oxymoron, as by its own principles, without scarcity, there is no economy in the usual sense. According to the principles of post-scarcity, eliminating scarcity – which is in essence a technical engineering problem – eliminates the need for money, and, though great resistance may be encountered, eventually eliminates money.

(Apologies making repeating these point, which I have made in posts over several years, but in several years of discussing these subjects, my conclusions have changed only in detail, not in general)

The vision of post-scarcity proponents such as Stross, Doctorow, and me, and of Peacemaker, is that the former see human nature – including selfishness – as effectively unchangeable, but the technology of resource acquisition and delivery as effectively unlimited, while the latter see human nature as changeable, but (usually) technology as fairly limited. This is a very fundamental disagreement in worldviews.

[Nitack]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

There is a current theory, that by adopting an open mind and a moneyless society that we can end the current round of disasters we call life. That by bringing ultimate logic to the myths and fantasies that comprise religious beliefs, that we can end the schisms that separate men from their brothers and sisters and bring about the required conditions of open mindedness that are required for mankind to move into the next stage of our evolution, to a peaceful, loving species, at one with our environment.
If you fully understand and appreciate to what I am refering, I would be most interested to hear your views.

This is a description of communism. It doesn't work as history has repeatedly shown us. Humans instinctualy seek to gain the most while expending the least energy to get it. That will not change, and it will always bring down a communist system.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I would take this a step further: greed is not just about resources, but about scarcity of resources. Greed for resources that are abundant is practically nonexistent.

Excellent point, thank you for taking it that extra step
And very well spoken post, I agree completely!

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Be specific Z, what will people be greedy for in a moneyless society where everyone has an equal share of the earth's resources?

Those are two very distinct statements - that the society will be moneyless and that everybody will have an equal share of the earth's resources.

On the second part, I have to say that I hope it will never happen. People are not all congruent. I eat twice as much as my sister, would your idea of an "equal share" take that into account, or do I go hungry, or my sister overeat?

I live in a rural area, where I have to drive a lot to get around (there is little to no useful public transportation). Would I have to work with just as much fuel as somebody who lives in a bustling city and does not need as much?

Does a person living in Texas get air conditioning? What about the people in Alaska, do they get heating fuel? Different people have different needs, so you cannot and should not try to make everybody have an 'equal share'.


"Ah!", you say, "But equal doesn't need to be the same!" And you're correct, but without a defined system of valuation, who is to say that the price of air conditioning is the same as the price of heating fuel? And with a defined system of valuation, you have money.

As far as I can tell, you can either have an equal society (which doesn't really work well), or a moneyless society (which cannot really function) but you cannot have both on a large scale.

[Peacemaker]

Hi Z
(So many questions - so little time. )
'How are people going to exchange for the items they need/want?
If I build clocks and need a new stove, how do I get the new stove?
(People will continue making clocks and stoves, and everything else we currently produce. There is no reason for us to stop making anything that is useful to mankind. And all you have to do is find yourself a job that you want to do and contribute to the daily task. Whatever it may be.)
Specifically, some individuals will be greedy for/desire status. Which can take the form of ownership/power over land/the opposite sex/artwork/etc.
(One of the cardinal requirements for this is that there is absolutely no ownership of anything, at all on this planet. If you need a lawn mower, you go and get one from the store. Why would you want 2? The same goes for everything else. Sex is a different issue which I won't go into here, but I have the perfect solution for that too. Most rare artwork is currently kept locked away in bank vaults and in private collections. Why not make these collections public and let us all take advantage of seeing, and being inspired by them. It is for the current owners to make that decision though. I wouldn't take anything from anybody. What I expect to happen is an evolution in mankind away from materialism to a happier and more sharing lifestyle. Some people may wish to retain their posessions and not share them with the community. That is their decision. I don't expect that state of mind to last long after it happens. People will think more rationally about what is REALLY important in life.)
Now, as I said earlier, if you can do away with any desires of humanity I suppose you can do away with money.
(I believe the polar opposite will be the case Z ;-)

[Peacemaker]

Hi CraigD,

Welcome back to hypography, Peacemaker! Even by those who profoundly disagree with you, you’ve been missed.

(Thanks for that, I'm genuinely touched. Best wishes to us all!...and thanks for the reading list. When I have a little more time on my hands I will peruse these tomes and let you know my feelings about the accuracy of them.)

I’ve seen no mention whatever of eliminating money. Rather than showing defects in the idea of money, crises such as these appear to show its utility.

(I agree. Money is the highest and most efficient form of barter we have yet invented, but it is imperfect and wide open to abuse.)

I would take this a step further: greed is not just about resources, but about scarcity of resources. Greed for resources that are abundant is practically nonexistent.

(Alas! we differ. Food is not in short supply in the western world, yet we don't share our bounty with the rest of the world because it would affect prices. Money and property = power. Have you seen the situation in Ethiopia? Where the government is deliberately withholding food aid from a large area of the country in order to starve millions of people to death, because those people don't necessarily agree with the politics of that government? The food aid is going directly to the Ethiopian Military. Not actual scarcity, just manufactured scarcity for political purposes.)

The vision of post-scarcity proponents such as Stross, Doctorow, and me, and of Peacemaker, is that the former see human nature – including selfishness – as effectively unchangeable, but the technology of resource acquisition and delivery as effectively unlimited, while the latter see human nature as changeable, but (usually) technology as fairly limited. This is a very fundamental disagreement in worldviews.

(If you check back on the posts Craig, I have given the examples of changing human attitudes to child smacking, homosexuality and AIDS as just a few areas where human nature has been fundamentally changed by public opinion over a very short period of human time. Also, I don't see technology as being limited at all. I have stated previously that once we free ourselves of the mental shackles of budgets and other financial restrictions we can produce whatever we want, and as much of it as we need within the limitations of the availability of the raw materials.

That means that scientists and inventors don't have to wait for years for funding to carry out important research. They just request the equipment and personnel they require and get on with it. I believe that THAT will get technology moving along at a much quicker pace than it is currently. Thanks for your continued questing Craig. I know we'll cross swords again in the future, but it's never personal. Sorry these answers are brief, but it's late and I am trying to get through as much as possible quickly. Best regards to you and yours. and to Z and his!)

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by Nitack

This is a description of communism. It doesn't work as history has repeatedly shown us. Humans instinctualy seek to gain the most while expending the least energy to get it. That will not change, and it will always bring down a communist system.

(I havn't communicated with you before Nitack, thanks for your interest. If you check page 14 of this thread you will see that I have covered this. The 'communism' that has been practiced so disasterously by China, Russia and others is in fact a bastardised form of capitalism, and as such was doomed to failure from the outset.

I don't mean to sound as if I am trying to teach my granny to suck eggs, but would you do me a favour and read the full thread, and any others I have contributed to, as I am sure you will find the answers to many of the questions you are asking yourself about this system in there somewhere.

It is not an easy system to comprehend as we have been taught from birth that the only way for humans to exist on this planet is to use money as a major means of measuring a man's worth to society, and his place in it. It takes a very open mind indeed to even contemplate a philosophy which relies solely on trust, love and teamwork, as a species, in order to move to a higher plane of life, right here, right now.

I am not a stupid man, and none of the people I know would consider me so. I am also not a crank, or a liar. So please take the time to understand what I am talking about and try to ignore what you think every one else might do in these circumstances. Many people think it is a great idea and that THEY would love to do it, but they have no faith in the majority of mankind to do the right thing under the terms of such a system. Let me worry about that. I just want, right now, to convince YOU that it is the best and fairest possible system for all of mankind to flourish on this planet

Best regards to you and yours,
Peacemaker

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Those are two very distinct statements - that the society will be moneyless and that everybody will have an equal share of the earth's resources.

On the second part, I have to say that I hope it will never happen. People are not all congruent. I eat twice as much as my sister, would your idea of an "equal share" take that into account, or do I go hungry, or my sister overeat?

I live in a rural area, where I have to drive a lot to get around (there is little to no useful public transportation). Would I have to work with just as much fuel as somebody who lives in a bustling city and does not need as much?

Does a person living in Texas get air conditioning? What about the people in Alaska, do they get heating fuel? Different people have different needs, so you cannot and should not try to make everybody have an 'equal share'.


"Ah!", you say, "But equal doesn't need to be the same!" And you're correct, but without a defined system of valuation, who is to say that the price of air conditioning is the same as the price of heating fuel? And with a defined system of valuation, you have money.

As far as I can tell, you can either have an equal society (which doesn't really work well), or a moneyless society (which cannot really function) but you cannot have both on a large scale.

Hi PGRMDAVE,

The answer I have given above is largely also what I would say to you. But more specifically, on your question of the equality of shares, I have stated, many times in this thread and in the document I have written that each human will take his share of everyting we have, ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.

What I am proposing is not that we all get 100 grains of rice a day and a chicken wing. I am saying is that under the philosophy I propose, every human being on this planet will go to a warm, comfortable bed each night with a belly full of goodness. We will ALL have access to the best accomodation, healthcare, recreational facilities, transport and whatever else we need, because all we have to do is work together and build it, grow it or invent it, without anyone owning any of it personally. So there are no value comparisons to be made. Just a fair and equitable addressing of universal supply and demand for our species... And if someone takes more than their fair share, what are they going to do with it? Carry it around for the rest of their lives? There would be NO POINT in taking more than we need under the terms of such a system. But there would be every reason to work, and thereby contribute. Because the rewards, in the betterment of our lifestyle will be phenomenal.

As I have stated above, although it is a very simple system, it is a REALLY difficult concept to take on board, because we expect the rest of humanity to sit back and let the more industrious get on with it. However, I predict that within 1 month of this occurring, to even THINK of not participating will be anathema to the vast majority of our species. The benefits will be obvious from very soon after we adopt this way of living (within minutes). I have written about the potential benefits before. Please read them and decide whether what I speak of will be better for you and your offspring than the potential 'Robocop' scenario which faces us under capitalism. I hope to speak to you soon.
Best regards to all,
Peacemaker.

[pgrmdave]

The problem with that system is that there becomes no incentive to have anything but the best things possible. Why eat grains every day when I could have meat every meal? (which, of course, is not sustainable in the long term, or even the short term) Why drive a kia when I could be driving a sleek, shiny sportscar? (when everybody in the world, all 6 billion+ of us, want sports cars, who is going to be able to manufacture them all quickly enough?) Why would I work as a janitor when I could get a job doing something I love? (think of all the dirty jobs...filthy jobs...the ones that people don't like to do - coal miner, sanitation worker, construction work...without financial incentive, why work at these jobs?).

If there was no scarcity of anything, then perhaps we could have your system. In fact, I will say that if we could have any given system in which there was no scarcity, human nature would tend toward your system. But there is scarcity of any given good. There might be enough food, but there's not enough wheat. There might be enough televisions, but there aren't enough 72" plasma TVs. There might be enough minerals, but not enough gold, or iron, or aluminum. Until there is enough of everything there is still scarcity. Potable water is soon going to become a scarce good, and if we develop some way to desalinate water it will require energy, and so far the best sources of energy that we have are:

Fossil fuels - scarce in and of themselves
Nuclear energy - produces waste which has to be disposed of, which creates a scarcity of uncontaminated land
Solar/wind - not available everywhere and takes up an incredible amount of land, making land much more scarce.
Biofuels - arable land is not infinite, and any land that is dedicated to fuels is not dedicated to food, which will have to be in overabundance to deal with the feeding of all 6 billion of us (which would require an inordinate amount of transportation, btw).