Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
233 replies to this topic

#188 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 09 October 2008 - 07:22 PM

Just to clarify, its pretty clear from the document that no one has the right to own anything. Thus if Phil just wants to walk up to Bob and take his favorite over Bob's objections, there's nothing to prevent it.

I can hear Mr. Peacemaker sputtering now, so I'll explain:

Remember, as soon as you establish ownership of *anything* in a society, the person that owns it potentially has a scarce commodity--as is the case with Bob's paintings--has the ability to "upset the overall good" by controlling its redistribution. If the "Government" can decide at anytime to override such ownership "for the common good" you have to figure out how to keep not only folks like Bob happy when you confiscate their goods, but also how to keep the Phil's of the world happy when they now have no way to get that good for their own use.

I'm sure there are some smart people who will figure out how to make everyone happy, or else its just the case that everyone will be happy no matter how many times in their lives that they come in 127th on the list.

Beware of the man who won't be bothered with details, :embarassed:
Buffy

#189 TheBigDog

TheBigDog

    Doing the Impossible

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4095 posts

Posted 10 October 2008 - 08:55 AM

Here's a truism. AS LONG AS MONEY AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXIST THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CORRUPTION. IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. The only way to remove it from human experience is to remove the source. There are thousands of lawyers out there, and judges and politicians who have been concocting laws for centuries, trying to make the use of money 'fair'. The problem is that there are thousands and thousands more lawyers, judges and politicians who make huge sums of money from their clients for telling them how to circumvent those laws. Then there are the criminal fraternity who are not so articulate, and so just grab a gun and take what they want by force.

Peacemaker, the paragraph that I have extracted pretty much sums up for me the difficulties with your plan. You are assigning money and property ownership as the root causes of corruption. Corruption is part of the human condition. If there were no money or property ownership people would find other motivations that would appear just as corrupting. I also believe that the advances we make in science and technology are a result of the same root causes, and that money and property ownership are what help to drive innovation at its current hectic pace.

There are examples of societies without the concept of money or property ownership. All such examples that I have seen end up as technological dead ends living in their own form of the dark ages. The American Indians lived largely without the concept of property ownership or money. They engaged in trade, but not in the type of commerce that supported society. They had also not discovered the use of the wheel and had for the most part no written language. They had a contentedness with what they knew and how they fit into the world; and that contentedness prevented them from expanding their understanding and expanding their knowledge. But even with that they were not without social turmoil and corruption.

Tribal life gave a person few options for vocation. It was a communal/service based structure where each person had a role, and they got the essentials by filling that role. But tradition was favored over innovation. In this respect they appeared to be at an evolutionary stand still. The human animal is adapting and surviving not solely through biological selection but through the use of science and technology. This evolutionary process is driven through discontent and ambition. Some people allow this discontent and ambition to drive them to acting in anti-social or corrupt ways. Others use it as a motivation to discover new things or to improve how things are done. As a result we are constantly inventing new jobs and new things.

In our society we have nearly unlimited options for vocation. Your choices will relate to how satisfied you become. Societies even take steps to support those who choose to not contribute or to work; but this is typically a less satisfying existence than you can get by being a contributing member of society. This acts as a base motivator to keep people in the game. Some people work hard but are still dissatisfied with their situation and they may in frustration turn to crime. This is not a result of money existing or money not existing; it is a person feeling a need and finding a means to an end.

Grabbing a gun and taking by force is not a result of rules and laws and lawyers and cash. It is a balance of desire, availability, and morality. Desire is the motivation to have something you do not have, or to keep something you already have. What you actions your are willing to take to fill your desire are balanced by availability and morality. If you are standing next to a person dying of thirst and you have a bottle of water, do you give that person your water when they ask? If it is the only bottle of water available and your own survival depends on keeping it then your willingness to give it over is different than if you can easily help the person without jeopardizing yourself. This NEED will strongly motivate you to resist giving up the water even to help another person. If that other person is your pregnant wife and her survival means the survival of your offspring as well then the moral balance changes and you might be more inclined to deny yourself the water. The person dying of thirst also has a need, whoever they are, and they will be very motivated to get your water to save themselves. If they have a gun they may use it to take from you what they need. None of this is about money or property, but about scarcity and availability of essential resources.

If you lived through this experience you may find yourself thinking more about water supply to prevent this from happening again. You start planning a reservoir to insure a constant water supply for all the people in the area. But there are people living where the reservoir needs to be built, and they have water all the time so water is not an issue they identify with. You cannot convince them to move and let you build the reservoir, but you know that it is the greater good for them to do so. Should they be moved by force? They contend that the people who do not live by the river should move to it and therefore no reservoir is needed. Should people be forced to vacate for the welfare of others, or should people be forced to live closer to available supplies? Is anyone allowed to refuse the solution, and if they do what are the consequences?

Ultimately without structure we cannot progress as a modern society. We are a highly complex network of experts. Nobody needs to know too many things, and we benefit from the shared skills and knowledge of our society. The choice of vocation that you make and the skills you develop help determine the rewards you reap in your lifetime. There is a value proposition to any endeavor that helps to determine what we should and should not be working on. Without value for actions and rewards for choices we end up with unguided chaos and a collapse of our expert service based society. We end up living on nature depending upon whatever personal skills we possess and upon the fickle kindness of others. Retirement ceases to exist when services can no longer be hired. Diseases that have been cured rise up again when those who spent a lifetime being educated to make medicine decide to do something else and "volunteers" are required to become researches and chemists. And "volunteers" are required to design build and repair high tech devices. And "volunteers" are required to enforce quality standards. "Volunteers" decide to process complex fuels and distribute them. "Volunteers" repair roads and railways. The wheels of industry turn because they are paid to do so. We pay for them to be done well and on time. "Volunteers" fly airliners, fix airliners, and control air traffic. "Volunteers" teach school. Modern society exists because of experts, and they are paid to provide that expertise. A good deal of a person's life is spent becoming an expert in a narrow but important field. That investment in training is rewarded by either money, or job satisfaction, or both. Getting people to actually dedicate their time and become those experts is critical and allows us to have faith in quality of things we do not understand or have time to pay attention to. Competition allows the best experts to be recognized. An "anyone who wants to do something just does it" philosophy is the fastest way to topple society. Having no reward system to keep experts in their profession will soon leave us without experts. The modern conveniences that make it appear possible are the first things to go putting us right back to the stone age.

Bill

#190 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 10 October 2008 - 09:47 AM

Thanks for your question Doug, Money is the root of most evil, and that's not a misquote, it's a fact....

Sorry to be a party pooper, but it IS A MISQUOTE.

1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith..."

According to the New Testament, money itself is NOT the root of all evil. It is the LOVE of money -- GREED.

#191 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 10 October 2008 - 06:58 PM

Peacemaker’s proposed sudden worldwide elimination of money, doesn’t describe, in the usual sense, a post-scarcity economy. However, I’m of the opinion that a “moneyless society”, if and when it becomes the norm, will become so as a consequence of the intentional or incidental near total elimination of scarcity described in the preceding link and other references to the concept of post-scarcity, or abundance.

The literature of post-scarcity economics (such as it is, being at present far from an established academic or other discipline, being perhaps better described at present as a hard SF genre) has much to say about the scenario Zythryn describes:

I have a bronze eagle statue which I absolutely love. I don't see it as a resource, simply as something to enjoy. Many other people have bought these as well. If they were free, more people would want them than can be made. How would you decide who gets one?
What if I was 900th on the list and only 12 a year could be made. Suppose I knew someone that was 3rd on the list. Might I not want to offer them something for their spot in line? Even if it were not money, it would be something, by definition, that the person valued more than their spot in line.
Woola! You have just created a barter system, AKA an economy.

In a post-scarcity economy, the commodity described – a bronze eagle statue – is never produced in supplies lower than demand for it, so the scenario described cannot arise.

The choice of a presumably highly detailed bronze statue in the given example is remarkable, as the technology for making such objects has existed for thousands of years in close to its modern form, and is among the earliest examples of mass-producable art. As with most metal sculpture, the artist first makes the piece – the eagle, in this example – from an easy-to-work material, typically Plasticine (modeling clay) over bent steel and/or aluminum rod. A mold is then made over it, removed, and, unless the piece is small enough to be cast in solid metal, a hollow replica made, usually in wax, from which is made a production mold, which, depending on the material used, can be used to cast a practically limitless number of the pieces.

For roughly the last century, there is no technical reason that a popular bronze statue should be in short supply. Typical art metal pieces are intentionally made in limited supplies for economic reasons, to increase price that their market will bear.

Increasingly, it’s practical to mass-produce nearly all art with almost no human-detectable loss of quality. For example, oil or acrylic paint on canvas can now be reproduced using any of a number of high-end inkjet printers, a process usually termed Giclée.

#192 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1539 posts

Posted 10 October 2008 - 08:37 PM

Craig, I agree that in a post scarcity economy there would no longer be much need for barter. Perhaps none if there truly was no scarcity of anything.
Perhaps Peacemaker would do better to pursue that (no scarcity) as a primary goal. He still has the issue of describing how we get to the point of no scarcity of anything.

#193 DougF

DougF

    Hypo Contributer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts

Posted 14 October 2008 - 02:12 PM

Peacemaker
Has the cat got all your tongues? or is the penny finally dropping that I just may have something here?

The silence is deafening... and do I get that cup of coffee yet Doug?

Best regards to all.

Peacemaker.



Yes: A fresh pot right here, Coffee all around. :earth: :( :read:

Pyrotex
Sorry to be a party pooper, but it IS A MISQUOTE.

1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith..."

According to the New Testament, money itself is NOT the root of all evil. It is the LOVE of money -- GREED.



Thanks Pyrotex for setting me straight. :) :jab:

#194 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 14 October 2008 - 02:33 PM

Craig, I agree that in a post scarcity economy there would no longer be much need for barter. Perhaps none if there truly was no scarcity of anything.
Perhaps Peacemaker would do better to pursue that (no scarcity) as a primary goal. He still has the issue of describing how we get to the point of no scarcity of anything.


While manufactured goods can potentially be made to not be scarce, there will always be the problem of art and live entertainment. While anybody can see a recording of a play, it is not possible for everybody to get to see the play live in person. The same thing happens with music and sports. While a clay pot can be reproduced, there is something special about having a hand-made pot, knowing that it was not mass produced adds to its perceived value. Until that desire is somehow dealt with, a true post-scarcity economy cannot exist (though an economy with much more equality than we currently have, in which people have better lives than they currently do, may be possible).

#195 Symbology

Symbology

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 14 October 2008 - 03:43 PM

If Money is the root of all evil,
and the Meyers-Briggs archetype of Sensing-Judging "Guardians" are fairly well regarded as the source of all money (and monetary greed to some observers),
Doesn't the transitive property imply then that SJ's are the root of all evil?

<The NT ducks>

In all fairness I have observed that the Sensing-Perceivers tend to be the source of physical greed (theft, violence, and war)

Intuitive Thinkers tend to be the source of intellectual greed (Technophiles that create inventions and discussions with little regard for their impact on humanity)

Intuitive Feelers tend to be the source of emotional greed (those clingy-fly-paper types that you just can't manage to break up with)

Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.
~ George Lucas via the character of "Yoda"



#196 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:05 PM

On a more somber note, if this current economic crisis gets any worse, we may all actually experience what it's like to live in a moneyless society real, real soon.
:)

I don't know about you guys, but I'm cutting all unnecessary spending -- at least until I have about 2 months of ready cash handy.

#197 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:22 PM

On a more somber note, if this current economic crisis gets any worse, we may all actually experience what it's like to live in a moneyless society real, real soon.
:(

I don't know about you guys, but I'm cutting all unnecessary spending -- at least until I have about 2 months of ready cash handy.


Well, I lost my job two weeks ago, so I'm feeling the pinch. I've started brushing up on my survival knowledge. ;)

In a sick, morbid, and utterly ecstatic way, I kind of hope the market does fall apart. :) :)
But not really of course...I don't think we are prepared for a moneyless society. We may never be.

#198 TheBigDog

TheBigDog

    Doing the Impossible

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4095 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 07:54 PM

While manufactured goods can potentially be made to not be scarce, there will always be the problem of art and live entertainment. While anybody can see a recording of a play, it is not possible for everybody to get to see the play live in person. The same thing happens with music and sports. While a clay pot can be reproduced, there is something special about having a hand-made pot, knowing that it was not mass produced adds to its perceived value. Until that desire is somehow dealt with, a true post-scarcity economy cannot exist (though an economy with much more equality than we currently have, in which people have better lives than they currently do, may be possible).

This is an excellent observation. What will also be scarce is service and availability. There is food at the store, but that is not convenient enough, I need it delivered or I will starve. I cannot use a stove, I need everything microwavable. I do not want to walk to the kitchen to get a drink, I need the drink within reach no matter where I am. This may seem extreme, but we each have our own perception of what is acceptable convenience, and even with abundance of goods, availability to each person's satisfaction become the next class war.

There is far more fresh water on this planet than is required to support life, there is in fact an abundance of water. But people still suffer from drought because of issues of distribution.

Bill

#199 Peacemaker

Peacemaker

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 18 October 2008 - 03:35 PM

On a more somber note, if this current economic crisis gets any worse, we may all actually experience what it's like to live in a moneyless society real, real soon.
:(

I don't know about you guys, but I'm cutting all unnecessary spending -- at least until I have about 2 months of ready cash handy.


Hi P, Nice quip, but you fail to recognise the essential difference between a planned moneyless society and a money-less society. :D

Best regards,
Peacemaker.

#200 Zythryn

Zythryn

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1539 posts

Posted 18 October 2008 - 04:16 PM

Peacemaker, no comment on a society based on lack of scarcity?
I was curious if you felt you could work towards that. And if you had any ideas how to approach the dificulties raised above.
It seems to me that is more attainable than snapping your fingers and having the majority of humanity change its basic nature.

#201 TheBigDog

TheBigDog

    Doing the Impossible

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4095 posts

Posted 18 October 2008 - 09:19 PM

Peacemaker, no comment on a society based on lack of scarcity?
I was curious if you felt you could work towards that. And if you had any ideas how to approach the dificulties raised above.
It seems to me that is more attainable than snapping your fingers and having the majority of humanity change its basic nature.

I think that in his mind there is a counter intuitive logic to the plan that is, to Peacemaker, self evident. But to the rest of us appears as the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind.
Posted Image
I don't care what flavor the cool-ade is, I ain't drinkin'.

Bill

#202 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 19 October 2008 - 11:32 PM

Hi P, Nice quip, but you fail to recognise the essential difference between a planned moneyless society and a money-less society. :evil:

So you admit there should be a plan? Seriously, all we've been asking for is the details. We've said quite clearly that we understand there needs to be a plan.

But if your plan doesn't deal with real issues--and as Z is most recently pressing for, details on whether your plan assumes lack of scarcity or if not what your plan is for handling the transition where scarcity still exists--then you are in this quote arguing both sides: you need not provide a plan, but any complaints about whether its possible assume there is not one.

That's not discussion or debate, that's an inability to deal with reality.

Distinctions drawn by the mind are not necessarily equivalent to distinctions in reality, :phones:
Buffy

#203 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 01:06 PM

So far, this is what I've gotten from this thread:

Step 1: Make everybody want to live in a utopian world
Step 2: ????
Step 3: We live in a utopian world.

See - it's that easy!

#204 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 20 October 2008 - 02:40 PM

...
Step 1: Make everybody want to live in a utopian world
Step 2: ????
Step 3: We live in a utopian world....!

It's done this way:

Define the Utopian Transition as:
-----------------------------------
Step 1: Make everybody want to live in a utopian world
Step 2: Execute Utopian Transition
Step 3: We live in a utopian world.
-----------------------------------

Now, execute the Utopian Transition as an infinitely recursive process!

See how easy it is!!! :shrug: