Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[CraigD]

I've just made a machine that can change other atoms into gold, in quantity, at a negligible cost.

 

Question: what should you do, now that I've let the cat out of the bag?

Forget about making gold, which is intrinsically useful only due to its conductivity, malleability, and prettiness, and get your machine to make platinum. The cost of hydrogen fuel cells will be dramatically reduced. License your machine, and you will become rich from the manufacturing of fuel cells.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Once money is established it cannot be removed without destroying the standard of living.

 

Can you explain?

 

Certainly, taking money away from an individual in a money-using society is likely to reduce their standard of living. Taking money away from everyone is likely to cause deflation – the same price of goods, along with incomes, falls. Giving money to everyone is likely to cause inflation – the price of goods, and incomes rises. However, the effect of decreasing the role of money in a society is likely to have an uneven effect – the standard of living of people with a lot of it (eg: Cuban plantation owners) will fall, while the standard of living of those without a lot of it (eg: Cuban peasants) will rise.

I think I can explain. When I said that the standard of living would be destroyed I think that I am radically understating the effect of removing money from a society once it has been established.

 

I have a agreement with my employer, as everyone does, that I will provide my time and my skills in return for payment. That payment comes primarily in the form of money and health benefits. I can use that money for pretty much any purpose, which is the benefit of money. If there were no money, I would need to make some other arrangement with my employer, or the entire concept of employment would be turned on its head. Do you think people are oppressed now when they have the right to use their wages as they please? Wait until the employer is rationing out basics of survival because there is no medium of trade. Not to mention, how would your employer acquire the goods that are rationed out to you? Even with low wages you still have the option of using your money as you see fit. And of saving your money in a bank, or investing your money in a venture. Without money you would have rations for everything in your life and you give up control of our own destiny. Money is what sets us free.

 

Live long and prosper!

 

Bill

[CraigD]

… I can use that money for pretty much any purpose, which is the benefit of money. If there were no money, I would need to make some other arrangement with my employer, or the entire concept of employment would be turned on its head. Do you think people are oppressed now when they have the right to use their wages as they please? Wait until the employer is rationing out basics of survival because there is no medium of trade.

A good point.

 

In my childhood home region of West Virginia and Kentucky, USA, what you described happened in a confined way in many mining towns, in the form of companies paying their employees in the form of “company script”, which could be spent only in company stores. At worst, this amounted to outright slavery. The 1987 movie Matewan depicts a 1920 “war” caused by such conditions.

Money is what sets us free.

Money can set us free. It can also enslave us. Which effect it is having (including both) in our various societies today is a subject of debate.

[Qfwfq]

Get out of the gold market.

Yep!

 

And mighty quick Quick QUICK QUIIIIIIIIIICK before it's too late!!!!!!!!!!:cocktail:

[InfiniteNow]

Do you think people are oppressed now when they have the right to use their wages as they please? Wait until the employer is rationing out basics of survival because there is no medium of trade. Not to mention, how would your employer acquire the goods that are rationed out to you? Even with low wages you still have the option of using your money as you see fit. And of saving your money in a bank, or investing your money in a venture. Without money you would have rations for everything in your life and you give up control of our own destiny.

I am in agreement with the nature of your point, but want to go a bit more abstract for a moment.

 

What if everyone had access to whatever they needed? Food, health products, whatever? We wouldn't need gold. We wouldn't need an "employer" to ration these things out because we'd already have anything we needed/wanted.

 

The crux of the idea (to me) which makes it possible is that EVERYONE, without limitation and without bias, have (to use my previous point) a replicator... essentially, nobody does not have. There is no longer a split between the haves/have nots.

 

It's a bit "pie-in-the-sky," I know... but, what if???

 

 

 

EDIT: Referenced the quote to TheBigDog.

[TheBigDog]

I am in agreement with the nature of your point, but want to go a bit more abstract for a moment.

 

What if everyone had access to whatever they needed? Food, health products, whatever? We wouldn't need gold. We wouldn't need an "employer" to ration these things out because we'd already have anything we needed/wanted.

 

The crux of the idea (to me) which makes it possible is that EVERYONE, without limitation and without bias, have (to use my previous point) a replicator... essentially, nobody does not have. There is no longer a split between the haves/have nots.

 

It's a bit "pie-in-the-sky," I know... but, what if???

I absolutely agree that a replicator could do a great deal to level the playing field. What would still be lacking would be things that could not come out of the replicator. Tickets to live events. Dinner at a particular resaurant. Time at a particular spa. Supply and demand go beyond just the material. Would I be able to vacation anyplace I want, whenever I want? Would I have the best attorney to represent me when I need legal help? Or I have an idea for a new gadget, and I need the time to experiment and perfect it. Would those resources be made available to me? What reward would come from my creativity?

 

The best you can ever do for the have-nots is insure that they have opportunity to become haves. Opportunity is not a guarantee of success. There is still risk of failure or the reward is meaningless.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

What if everyone had access to whatever they needed? Food, health products, whatever? We wouldn't need gold. We wouldn't need an "employer" to ration these things out because we'd already have anything we needed/wanted.

 

The crux of the idea (to me) which makes it possible is that EVERYONE, without limitation and without bias, have (to use my previous point) a replicator... essentially, nobody does not have. There is no longer a split between the haves/have nots.

 

It's a bit "pie-in-the-sky," I know... but, what if???

While it might be a bit “pie-in-the-sky”, the scenario Infi describes is what theorists call “an abundance economy”. It’s the subject of several works of non-fiction and fiction, including Charles Stross’s novel, “Accelerando” (e-copy for free under a CCL). Several people, including Stross, suggest that such an economy might develop out of our current “scarcity economy” as soon as the 2030s, rendering many institutions commonly considered essential to society irrelevant.

[InfiniteNow]

I absolutely agree that a replicator could do a great deal to level the playing field. What would still be lacking would be things that could not come out of the replicator. Tickets to live events. Dinner at a particular resaurant. Time at a particular spa. Supply and demand go beyond just the material. Would I be able to vacation anyplace I want, whenever I want? Would I have the best attorney to represent me when I need legal help? Or I have an idea for a new gadget, and I need the time to experiment and perfect it. Would those resources be made available to me? What reward would come from my creativity?

Hmmm... services. Obtaining and providing. Hmmm... I was leaving that out of my thinking. Will have to get back to you.

 

Except... the dinner would still be able to be replicated... that's still material.

[CraigD]

I absolutely agree that a replicator could do a great deal to level the playing field. What would still be lacking would be things that could not come out of the replicator. Tickets to live events. Dinner at a particular resaurant. Time at a particular spa. Supply and demand go beyond just the material. …

Under scarcity vs. abundance economic models, what you are describing is called a “novelty economy”. The idea is that, with any commodity (food, shelter, etc) in abundance, and any old information/idea (eg: recording of a live event, engineering blueprints, work of art) equally available, new, (novel) ideas would, due to their scarcity, become a currency.

 

The practical implications of a “novelty economy” are a bit hard to imagine, and often lead to very weird imagined scenarios.

 

A major question concerning novelty economies is how large they would be, relative to scarcity economies. All human beings require food, but not all appear to require novelty. Human beings have a great capacity for amusing themselves, without the aid of live performers, and service providers. Certainly some people would be driven to seek out new ideas, and would be willing to trade with people to get them – I like to think we at Hypography are such people – but what fraction of the total population would this be.

 

Such contemplation is interesting, but, absent an effective formal model of the human psyche (which might, according to many futurists, undergo rapid change under an abudance economy, in the form of such things as uploaded minds and computer-brain interfaces), it’s difficult to elevate such contemplation above the level of speculation.

[Qfwfq]

Interesting scenario, although I personally might call it a culture-based economy.

 

Although in a different manner, the Soviet regime aimed toward a somewhat culture-based economy. Accademic and artistic as well as sports merits were valued very much.

 

As for the restaurant, I would count culinary quality out of the material replicability. Seats at an excellent live performance would not be replicateable but a good CD already is, if you disregard copyright!

[InfiniteNow]

Interesting scenario, although I personally might call it a culture-based economy.

 

Although in a different manner, the Soviet regime aimed toward a somewhat culture-based economy. Accademic and artistic as well as sports merits were valued very much.

 

As for the restaurant, I would count culinary quality out of the material replicability. Seats at an excellent live performance would not be replicateable but a good CD already is, if you disregard copyright!

Could not the seats also be replicated? The walls? ... And if we are truly using a replicator device of sorts, would not copies of music be easiest since we do that already with burners and electronics?

 

I still haven't fully wrapped my head around the impact of services in this issue in a way that I feel supports coherent discussion...but, a large part of me senses that services would be much less of an issue (with the way I personally envision replicator technology).

 

Why would I need to call a plumber when I could replicate a whole new house with the plumbing system installed?

 

 

Many of the laws themselves would most likely be eliminated, since theft and many of the motivations behind it (and similar crimes) would pretty much evaporate. Same with drugs... "Hello replicator, I would like some high grade cocaine and a mirror..." <poof>... Murder (and other violent crime) is the one I'm struggling with as it stands right now. Am trying to decipher the impact this proposed society would have on those social ills.

 

The other issue is sex... In many ways, I feel in a society like this, the only required form of service for which we would trade would be reproductively based... the "oldest profession..." But what would you trade besides the emotions I mentioned in a previous post?

 

 

If only this were all a little more real, less speculative... the answers might find themselves.

[TheBigDog]

Could not the seats also be replicated? The walls? ... And if we are truly using a replicator device of sorts, would not copies of music be easiest since we do that already with burners and electronics?

 

I still haven't fully wrapped my head around the impact of services in this issue in a way that I feel supports coherent discussion...but, a large part of me senses that services would be much less of an issue (with the way I personally envision replicator technology).

 

Why would I need to call a plumber when I could replicate a whole new house with the plumbing system installed?

 

 

Many of the laws themselves would most likely be eliminated, since theft and many of the motivations behind it (and similar crimes) would pretty much evaporate. Same with drugs... "Hello replicator, I would like some high grade cocaine and a mirror..." <poof>... Murder (and other violent crime) is the one I'm struggling with as it stands right now. Am trying to decipher the impact this proposed society would have on those social ills.

 

The other issue is sex... In many ways, I feel in a society like this, the only required form of service for which we would trade would be reproductively based... the "oldest profession..." But what would you trade besides the emotions I mentioned in a previous post?

 

 

If only this were all a little more real, less speculative... the answers might find themselves.

I am going to play the spoiler role in our "Replicator Society". At least I am going to try.

 

Replicator issues:

 

Waste: The replicator is constantly making new matter from energy. How do we dispose of all that new matter?

 

Recipes: Presumable the replicator needs a complex recipe to make an object. When Picard says "Tea, Earl Gray, hot" it knows to make a teacup, a saucer, the tea and the serving temperature of "hot". Someone spent time configuring that recipe, and the sequence of events to build things. So a replicator would come with a preset list of recipes, or maybe you download them from the net. But to make anything new, you would need to do trial and error.

 

Size: Is there a maximum sized peice of material that can be replicated. On the starship it was a microwave sized area. They had a docking bay that had a bigger replicator for bigger items. But there is a limit to the scal of any particular item you can make.

 

Complexity: This ties with recipes. What is the limit of the complexity of an item that you can make. Plastics? Synthesized organic matter? Simple compounds? Complex molecules? All elelments? Complex mechanical devices like a watch? Would it create complex things fully assembled and functioning, or would they need assembly? Would the instructions be part of what is replicated?

 

Danger: Could my replicator make a weapon? A chemical/bilogical/nuclear weapon? Gunpower? Rocket fuel? Would there be controls in place to prevent these types of things from being created?

 

Legality: If there were controls in place to prevent certain destructive devices from being created, then who would decide what was legal to create, and what was not legal to create?

 

Evolution: Could the replicator make another replicator? Could it make one with the ability to analyze and improve its own design? Could it make generation after generation of replicators until they could change the universe into an object in their own image?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I am going to play the spoiler role in our "Replicator Society". At least I am going to try.

 

Replicator issues:

 

Waste: <text removed by infinitenow>

Recipes:<text removed by infinitenow>

Size: <text removed by infinitenow>

Complexity: <text removed by infinitenow>

Danger:<text removed by infinitenow>

Legality: <text removed by infinitenow>

Evolution: <text removed by infinitenow>

Oh, come on TheBigDog... those were issues the society faced with version 1.2 Beta. Those got corrected after only a decade's use. Now, with version 4.9, we are smooth sailing... That whole conservation of energy issue was long corrected when we implemented the shorter half-life of all items made with the replicator...

 

 

Kidding aside, good points, but not insurmountable ones. The machines could link together and share the knowledge base of each other, which would grow their ability exponentially (or is, logrithmically? I've always been uncertain of that) which would solve most (sure, not all, but most) of the problems you brought up ...but anyway...

 

 

It's still pie-in-the-sky... when is one of the intelligent designers (no creationist meaning intended) on Hypography going to get one of these things working?

[TheBigDog]

It's still pie-in-the-sky... when is one of the intelligent designers (no creationist meaning intended) on Hypography going to get one of these things working?

It is a fun diversion from issues of meaning in my lifetime. But I have been tinkering in the basement...

 

Bill

[CraigD]

I’m reluctantly drawn into this technical discussion of non-existent technology / fan minutia, compelled, it seems, by an urge to see the best version of the fanish consensus expressed (sigh).

Replicator issues:

 

Waste: The replicator is constantly making new matter from energy.

STrek replicators don’t actually create matter from energy (photons). At worst efficiency, they assemble matter out of a plasma of disassociate protons and electrons, colliding them to create neutrons. At better, they draw from stored reserves of the common atoms and molecules.

How do we dispose of all that new matter?

Recycling. Most waste can be vaporized and used to replenish the reserves with a modest (compared to most of the replicator cycle) energy expenditure. This includes nearly all toxic material. Tiny amount of hazardous elemental nuclei can either be ejected into space (if in space) or transmuted into harmless ones and recycled

 

The real problem with just about all the super-high power engineering in STrek is not waste matter, but waste energy – waste heat. My beloved 1991 Star Fleet Technical Manual goes into great detail about how the Enterprise get gajiga-watts of power from place to place thought an elaborate plumbing of magnetic plasma conduits, having generated it by annihilating streams of hydrogen and antihdrogen, but not one word on how it avoids transforming the whole ship into a glowing ball of plasma. Real, non-fictional type ~1 civilization engineering would, I suspect, have much to do with waste heat management.

Recipes: Presumable the replicator needs a complex recipe to make an object. When Picard says "Tea, Earl Gray, hot" it knows to make a teacup, a saucer, the tea and the serving temperature of "hot". Someone spent time configuring that recipe, and the sequence of events to build things. So a replicator would come with a preset list of recipes, or maybe you download them from the net. But to make anything new, you would need to do trial and error.

Yes. This has been true for as long as people have been obtaining items other than by finding them in the wild or hand crafting them, however, and every age’s information technology has been adequate to the task. The list of things people would ever want from a replicator is not, by current, and certainly by imagined future standards, a very demanding IT requirement. (“certainly by imagined” – these are the kinds of phrases that make me wary of such writing!)

Size: Is there a maximum sized peice of material that can be replicated.

Presumably. As with current manufacturing, large objects would either have to be replicated in layers by mobile manufacturing devices, or made in smaller pieces and assembled. I can’t recall ever seeing such robots on the shows, but suspect that this is due to production cost restraints – robot animations are way harder and costlier than sparkly lights cross-faded into a steaming cup of tea, and engineers in grease-stained coveralls much better theatre.

Complexity: This ties with recipes. What is the limit of the complexity of an item that you can make.

Presumably not.

 

The inability of replicators to make certain substances (Eg: “dilithium” or “latnium”), is central to many STrek screenplays (and essential for there to be a precious metal monetary standard, per later screenplays) but these limitations don’t make much sense. They’re just plot devices.

Danger: Could my replicator make a weapon? A chemical/bilogical/nuclear weapon? Gunpower? Rocket fuel? Would there be controls in place to prevent these types of things from being created?

Yes to all. Just as there are controls in place now to prevent small children and terrorists from purchasing missle system, you’d have to have special authorization to replicate (or otherwise obtain) such things.

 

How to avoid the circumvention of these controls by miscreants and saboteurs is an interesting question, of much more near-future value than replicators themselves, since it is, in essence, Digital Rights Management. Every replicator would presumably be an “trusted/honorable computing device” somewhat like a DVD player, with something like a virus scanner implemented in hardware to detect attempts to fool the machine into making illegal goods.

Legality: If there were controls in place to prevent certain destructive devices from being created, then who would decide what was legal to create, and what was not legal to create?

Why, the UFP legal system, of course! (which the scientific study and reform of government will have perfected by then :surprise: This, is, after all, science fiction we’re discussing!

Evolution: Could the replicator make another replicator?

Yes.

Could it make one with the ability to analyze and improve its own design?

That wouldn’t be a replicator, per say – more of an artificially intelligent self-replicating machine.

Could it make generation after generation of replicators until they could change the universe into an object in their own image?

that would be the general idea. Presumably there’d be laws against this sort of thing.

[arkain101]

I thought about designing a new type of society where money was not a significance.

 

I was wondering if we created one bankaccount and the civilians earnings went directly into this account. Then Each civilian like one big family would be allowed to pull out such and such ammount of money fromt his massive, massive pile of money. No one would be rich but no one would be poor either.

some kind of mathamatical formula to see how much people could pull out at a time.

It sounds nuts.. but right now 90% of the money is in 5% of the hands so it would allow for a pretty differenct society.

However you would need to bring a proof of hours worked, and would be paid generously.

 

however, this is one incredbly complex subject.

[TheBigDog]

I thought about designing a new type of society where money was not a significance.

 

I was wondering if we created one bankaccount and the civilians earnings went directly into this account. Then Each civilian like one big family would be allowed to pull out such and such ammount of money fromt his massive, massive pile of money. No one would be rich but no one would be poor either.

some kind of mathamatical formula to see how much people could pull out at a time.

It sounds nuts.. but right now 90% of the money is in 5% of the hands so it would allow for a pretty differenct society.

However you would need to bring a proof of hours worked, and would be paid generously.

 

however, this is one incredbly complex subject.

I don't know if I have come across as so, but I am a big believer in free market. Despite that, I have wondered about ways to help individuals by putting in controls that would prevent them from overextending their resources, and thus becoming a burden upon the market. The idea was this...

 

A person would register with a company that would become their financial controller. They would do all of their financial transactions through this entity. That entity would also be the sole source of credit for a person who had signed up. The idea is to make credit available, but prevent people from overextending. A forecasting method would be used for approving the total debt a person would be allowed to have. The service would build a budget for you, and enforce your living within that budget by restricting your access to your own money. This would help people to invest wisely, keep up with all of their debts, and enjoy a standard of living that does not exceed their means.

 

My experience is that people need discipline to be wealthy, and that those without discipline live check to check. This would provide a means of discipline. You would never totally give up control of your money, you would hire someone to make you justify your spending before you do it. I know I could use such a service. It is essentially an accountant, but would have modern technology to aid in protecting people from breaking from the plans they had made.

 

It would work like this.... I bring in hypothetically $2000/month. I am single and live in an apartment within walking distance of work. $200 is invested for retirement before anything else. $500 for rent. $300 for utilities. I need $800 for food. That leaves $200 for misc expenses or investment. This would all be set and budgeted when I began the service.

 

Once you have the basics set, you would negotiate with the service for getting credit for purchases that exceed your available resources. The trick is that by contract you cannot get credit from any other source, and they cannot refuse you credit withing a formula related to your income. There would be an insurance system built to protect both parties. If I needed $1000 for a vacation, but only had $200, I could borrow the money, and automatically have the repayment made from my misc money. I could continue to do this until my excess money was only enough to keep up with the repayments. Then I could get no more credit. I would be bound to this system. In the event of hardship, there would be a reorganization to allow additional funds (such as medical) or restructure repayment over a longer period (loss of income). Again, insurance policies would be mandatory in this relationship to make sure that in extreme circumstances everything gets evened back out.

 

There would be some creative things done with allocating money to people. If I have a grocery budget, I would not be able to overspend that budget. I would also only be able to spend that money on food! Using electronic checkouts every item on a shopping list could be allocated against the correct account. I could have a scanner on my cell phone that would add up things in my shopping cart as I pick them, and let me know where I am against my budget.

 

The idea is to help people protect their own money better, and as a result, strengthen the whole economy, and improve the overall standard of living. And remember that part about saving money first. You are not only insuring that you never have debt beyond your means, but that you will live in retirement as comfortably as you did while you were working.

 

Bill