Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ?

[LightRider]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

If nobody works or needs to work because machines are doing everything then you're already living in utopia. What's the problem? Isn't that the whole goal of the Venus project you're so fond of? A fine goal, but the thing is without money you have no way to do economic calculation and so no rational way to allocate resources to where you're going to get the biggest bang for your buck. You get more scarcity, not a magical post-scarcity utopia.

Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values. This ideology has run rampant for decades and we can plainly see the results. In a resource based economy, we measure things scientifically, empirically and rationally. We don't need to distort, hide or ignore reality to fit our preconceived economic notions because we would recognize the danger in doing so. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the technological and scientific realities of our time so that we can all benefit from them. Clinging to ancient economic religions leads only to your detriment.

[dvide]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

If nobody works or needs to work because machines are doing everything then you're already living in utopia. What's the problem? Isn't that the whole goal of the Venus project you're so fond of? A fine goal, but the thing is without money you have no way to do economic calculation and so no rational way to allocate resources to where you're going to get the biggest bang for your buck. You get more scarcity, not a magical post-scarcity utopia.

Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values. This ideology has run rampant for decades and we can plainly see the results. In a resource based economy, we measure things scientifically, empirically and rationally. We don't need to distort, hide or ignore reality to fit our preconceived economic notions because we would recognize the danger in doing so. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the technological and scientific realities of our time so that we can all benefit from them. Clinging to ancient economic religions leads only to your detriment.

But you realize you're not actually saying anything meaningful? Unless you can take a more reductionist approach to your explanations you're not going to convince anyone, except people who also think the way you do. You're just speaking in this meaningless holistic way that makes no sense to someone who knows to use methodological individualism as a basis for the explanation of social phenomenon.

Evoorhees has explained with methodological individualism the Mengerian account of why money is a naturally emergent phenomenon that serves an actual purpose, and how it would come about naturally even to a society of people who have no prior concept of money. He's not even really being prescriptive about it; he's being descriptive. It is explained by reducing the account to simple non-controversial statements, i.e. so that the explanation doesn't even assume some hyper-rational cooperation of people to come up with it. It just comes about on its own by individual humans being merely rational actors, and that is to say human action isn't just arbitrary action but goal-driven. Now, this isn't a rejection of the existence of collective groups -- of numbers of people lower than Dunbar's limit at least -- but it's just saying that any form of collectivism isn't even necessary explain money in a sufficient way.

And the Wikipedia link on economic calculation explains -- again using methodological individualism -- why money prices are needed for profit/loss accounting, and why profit/loss accounting is needed for a society to rationally economize and allocate resources, and for entrepreneurs to coordinate, on a macro scale. Prices actually mean something; they're not just arbitrarily set things (at least in a free market). They're a bottom-up reflection of the intersubjective valuations of things to the people in an economy, and of the availability of such things. Without prices you lack the necessary information to be able to calculate what is economically profitable to produce and what isn't. You won't get that information any other way than through the emergent processes of the price system. Certainly no central computer could have it because it doesn't have access to the dynamic minds of everybody in the society. So when you say 'Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values', I don't even know what that means. I'd say it's the complete opposite, but I'm not merely asserting it like you're doing. You can't just holistically dismiss any inconvenient economic explanation outright that comes your way as being some mere historical baggage. You actually have to criticize it, and use the same reductionistic approach to explain why what we're saying isn't actually true and why the Venus project ideas are right

Lecture: Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno

[LightRider]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

If nobody works or needs to work because machines are doing everything then you're already living in utopia. What's the problem? Isn't that the whole goal of the Venus project you're so fond of? A fine goal, but the thing is without money you have no way to do economic calculation and so no rational way to allocate resources to where you're going to get the biggest bang for your buck. You get more scarcity, not a magical post-scarcity utopia.

Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values. This ideology has run rampant for decades and we can plainly see the results. In a resource based economy, we measure things scientifically, empirically and rationally. We don't need to distort, hide or ignore reality to fit our preconceived economic notions because we would recognize the danger in doing so. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the technological and scientific realities of our time so that we can all benefit from them. Clinging to ancient economic religions leads only to your detriment.

But you realize you're not actually saying anything meaningful? Unless you can take a more reductionist approach to your explanations you're not going to convince anyone, except people who also think the way you do. You're just speaking in this meaningless holistic way that makes no sense to someone who knows to use methodological individualism as a basis for the explanation of social phenomenon.

Evoorhees has explained with methodological individualism the Mengerian account of why money is a naturally emergent phenomenon that serves an actual purpose, and how it would come about naturally even to a society of people who have no prior concept of money. He's not even really being prescriptive about it; he's being descriptive. It is explained by reducing the account to simple non-controversial statements, i.e. so that the explanation doesn't even assume some hyper-rational cooperation of people to come up with it. It just comes about on its own by individual humans being merely rational actors, and that is to say human action isn't just arbitrary action but goal-driven. Now, this isn't a rejection of the existence of collective groups -- of numbers of people lower than Dunbar's limit at least -- but it's just saying that any form of collectivism isn't even necessary explain money in a sufficient way.

And the Wikipedia link on economic calculation explains -- again using methodological individualism -- why money prices are needed for profit/loss accounting, and why profit/loss accounting is needed for a society to rationally economize and allocate resources, and for entrepreneurs to coordinate, on a macro scale. Prices actually mean something; they're not just arbitrarily set things (at least in a free market). They're a bottom-up reflection of the intersubjective valuations of things to the people in an economy, and of the availability of such things. Without prices you lack the necessary information to be able to calculate what is economically profitable to produce and what isn't. You won't get that information any other way than through the emergent processes of the price system. Certainly no central computer could have it because it doesn't have access to the dynamic minds of everybody in the society. So when you say 'Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values', I don't even know what that means. I'd say it's the complete opposite, but I'm not merely asserting it like you're doing. You can't just holistically dismiss any inconvenient economic explanation outright that comes your way as being some mere historical baggage. You actually have to criticize it, and use the same reductionistic approach to explain why what we're saying isn't actually true and why the Venus project ideas are right

Lecture: Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno

Individualism is a fraud used to promote economic theories. We behave, think, believe and promote that which is prominent in our environment, both physical and social. You can't even form the basis of the most rudimentary community on the ideas of individuality. We must share similarities with others if we are to survive as individuals, period. Appealing to such baseless ideas is what perpetuates the abhorrent behavior we see today.

[LightRider]

Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values. This ideology has run rampant for decades and we can plainly see the results. In a resource based economy, we measure things scientifically, empirically and rationally. We don't need to distort, hide or ignore reality to fit our preconceived economic notions because we would recognize the danger in doing so. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the technological and scientific realities of our time so that we can all benefit from them. Clinging to ancient economic religions leads only to your detriment.

I totally agree! I hear life was pretty sweet under Communism. Sure it kinda sucked if the central authorities made a boo-boo and accidentally allocated only 5 labour resources where they needed 20, but because of the "full employment" thing you could just as easily end up in a job with a team of 20 where they only really needed 5. OK, so Communism had a few minor foibles, but that's nothing a tidy piece of C code can't fix. In fact, I could probably help write that code. I want to make sure the resources go to the right place this time

"Full employment" is again, another artifact of a monetary system. In a resource based economy, human labor is diminished purposefully by utilizing automation to the fullest extent possible. Recognizing the liberating effects of science and technology is a key distinction between such an economy and all previous human endeavors.

[dvide]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

If nobody works or needs to work because machines are doing everything then you're already living in utopia. What's the problem? Isn't that the whole goal of the Venus project you're so fond of? A fine goal, but the thing is without money you have no way to do economic calculation and so no rational way to allocate resources to where you're going to get the biggest bang for your buck. You get more scarcity, not a magical post-scarcity utopia.

Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values. This ideology has run rampant for decades and we can plainly see the results. In a resource based economy, we measure things scientifically, empirically and rationally. We don't need to distort, hide or ignore reality to fit our preconceived economic notions because we would recognize the danger in doing so. It's time to stop living in the past and embrace the technological and scientific realities of our time so that we can all benefit from them. Clinging to ancient economic religions leads only to your detriment.

But you realize you're not actually saying anything meaningful? Unless you can take a more reductionist approach to your explanations you're not going to convince anyone, except people who also think the way you do. You're just speaking in this meaningless holistic way that makes no sense to someone who knows to use methodological individualism as a basis for the explanation of social phenomenon.

Evoorhees has explained with methodological individualism the Mengerian account of why money is a naturally emergent phenomenon that serves an actual purpose, and how it would come about naturally even to a society of people who have no prior concept of money. He's not even really being prescriptive about it; he's being descriptive. It is explained by reducing the account to simple non-controversial statements, i.e. so that the explanation doesn't even assume some hyper-rational cooperation of people to come up with it. It just comes about on its own by individual humans being merely rational actors, and that is to say human action isn't just arbitrary action but goal-driven. Now, this isn't a rejection of the existence of collective groups -- of numbers of people lower than Dunbar's limit at least -- but it's just saying that any form of collectivism isn't even necessary explain money in a sufficient way.

And the Wikipedia link on economic calculation explains -- again using methodological individualism -- why money prices are needed for profit/loss accounting, and why profit/loss accounting is needed for a society to rationally economize and allocate resources, and for entrepreneurs to coordinate, on a macro scale. Prices actually mean something; they're not just arbitrarily set things (at least in a free market). They're a bottom-up reflection of the intersubjective valuations of things to the people in an economy, and of the availability of such things. Without prices you lack the necessary information to be able to calculate what is economically profitable to produce and what isn't. You won't get that information any other way than through the emergent processes of the price system. Certainly no central computer could have it because it doesn't have access to the dynamic minds of everybody in the society. So when you say 'Economic calculation is an abstraction and distorts our perceptions and values', I don't even know what that means. I'd say it's the complete opposite, but I'm not merely asserting it like you're doing. You can't just holistically dismiss any inconvenient economic explanation outright that comes your way as being some mere historical baggage. You actually have to criticize it, and use the same reductionistic approach to explain why what we're saying isn't actually true and why the Venus project ideas are right

Lecture: Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno

Individualism is a fraud used to promote economic theories. We behave, think, believe and promote that which is prominent in our environment, both physical and social. You can't even form the basis of the most rudimentary community on the ideas of individuality. We must share similarities with others if we are to survive as individuals, period. Appealing to such baseless ideas is what perpetuates the abhorrent behavior we see today.

That's not what methodological individualism means; don't confuse it with a sort of prescriptive individualism of going off by yourself and being selfish, etc. And you absolutely can explain community by methodological individualism, by explaining that man is a social animal and has instincts that lean that way. In fact that is the whole point:

It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events. Methodological individualism, far from contesting the significance of such collective wholes, considers it as one of its main tasks to describe and to analyze their becoming and their disappearing, their changing structures, and their operation. And it chooses the only method fitted to solve this problem satisfactorily.

The economic calculation problem explains, with money and the price mechanism (both of which have an even more reductionistic explanation), how entire societies -- and even the entire world now -- are able to cooperate together well beyond Dunbar's number, economize on a macro level, and how this cooperation would not be possible without those price signals. After all we are not linked by a hive mind: we are fundamentally still individuals, and groups only form when individual action coincides to make groups form. You still have to give a satisfactory explanation of why and how that happens, and a holistic one isn't sufficient.

[dvide]

You think in terms of 'societies' as some fundamental unit, and as such your understanding of them is always going to be flawed because you have your own assumptions about what societies are, and those assumptions really have no basis behind them. Methodological individualism gives a basis for what societies are, but you're just stopping at the group level and assuming that it's just a thing that exists and is something that can't be reduced down further to individual action/motivation/behaviour/nature. So you don't understand the limits of social cooperation: that it's not just a 'given' that vast swathes of unrelated people just mutually come together and agree on things, and commit to do massive social projects together. But that isn't a given at all. You have to explain, in a more fundamental way, how and why those things happen, and what is necessary for those things to happen, otherwise you're just being lazy about it.

You just assume that the problems you see in today's society are attributable to what you don't like, and you assume this on an instinctive, common-sense level, but you can't really explain it in a more compelling way. I admit that it's somewhat intuitive to think that the 'money system' is somehow structurally problematic, and complex division of labour. We evolved in small human-scale tribes where cooperation and collective ownership is easy and natural. People for whatever reason have an instictive reaction (or maybe it's just cultural baggage, not sure) to think of 'making money' as a bad thing, and people think too highly of inefficient not-for-profit organizations just because profit is a dirty word. But the holistic, common-sense answer isn't always correct, as we can see by the monty hall problem. And to me it sounds like you're giving the reactionary, holistic, common-sense answer to the monty hall problem as 50% (which practically everybody thinks when they first hear it -- even brilliant mathematicians like Paul Erdos). And when it is shown to you in a reductionistic way -- by explicitly mapping out the probabilities -- that the answer is really 66%/33%, you simply assert 'nope' without explaining where the reductionistic explanation went wrong. Hopefully you can see with this analogy why what you're saying is not compelling at all.

As an anarchist (of the ancap pursuation), I think that when I attribute problems to the state I can explain it as being how the state interferes -- with aggressive violence -- with emergent market mechanisms (like the price mechanism), and this makes things inefficient and wasteful, leads to less social cooperation, etc. I think there's a complete chain of descriptive explanation there, going back to individual action, and even the existence of states is considered with methodological individualism, so it's not exempt from it. And I do believe that we can all be as fantastically wealthy as the venus projectors think (though I wouldn't go as far as to say 'post-scarcity', because human desire is unbounded). It just won't happen without money and prices, because as I believe I have explained that would cause more waste and more scarcity and poverty, and wouldn't occur naturally anyway without violent intervention from a state.

[unclescrooge]

I like your beautiful ideas of moneyless societies, robotic governments and so on. But please, please, don't force me into this. Let people like me free to live as they wish, exchange money if they want, trade a they see fit between free and responsible adults,...


That's the only thing I ask: don't thread on me. I hope it isn't too much to ask.

[the joint]

The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.

Not sure if trolling or.....

Basically, you're confusing an economy with breathing.

I would explain this, but I think it's self-evident.

Hey, if someone can pick up a stick and say it's money, then for damn sure oxygen could be money.

I'm being serious when I say this, but I've thought of starting a bottled-air business. I'm sure there'd be a whole bunch of people that would be interested.  Want a sealed bottle filled with air from Antarctica?  Or maybe a bottled that was opened and sealed on the Moon and flown back to Earth?  Or maybe air from your favorite celebrity's bedroom?

I see no reason to believe that air couldn't become money in the way that you have defined it.

[the joint]

The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.

Not sure if trolling or.....

Basically, you're confusing an economy with breathing.

I would explain this, but I think it's self-evident.

Hey, if someone can pick up a stick and say it's money, then for damn sure oxygen could be money.

I'm being serious when I say this, but I've thought of starting a bottled-air business. I'm sure there'd be a whole bunch of people that would be interested.  Want a sealed bottle filled with air from Antarctica?  Or maybe a bottled that was opened and sealed on the Moon and flown back to Earth?  Or maybe air from your favorite celebrity's bedroom?

I see no reason to believe that air couldn't become money in the way that you have defined it.

Extend this idea a little further and I would purchase from you. I think you should sell celebrity queefs. I’ll take two bottles of Adriana Lima and a bottle of Megan Fox.

I'll try to get a hold of Adriana, but we tried a few with Megan and she melted the bottles

I'll keep you posted.

[acoindr]

@the joint - regarding your quote "Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is."

Actually, that is what fiat money is, not necessarily real money. The only time you get real money is when the free market picks what it is. If the government doesn't pick what the free market would then the declared money is artificial, and will eventually self-destruct as has happened throughout history because governments can't resist debasing it, whether we are talking about Romans and diluted metals, paper currency (Zimbabwe, Argentina, etc.), or tally sticks. For thousands of years the free market has determined commodities like gold and silver, for example, are real money and return to these upon failure of the artificial money. We are once again in the early stages of this cycle, but unfortunately it's worldwide this time.

You are right, however, that @MarketNeutral missed one, actually the main, characteristic of money which is it is what people AGREE to accept as money. That is the only time you get money, and why fiat money is usually dangerously artificial.

My next post will deal with @LightRider's view about robots and automation etc. for a money-less society.

[proudhon]

"For the first time, I was seriously realizing I could live totally moneyless."

Um yeah... because you hitch hiked off other people's generosity, and used clothing and tools created by the money-society you are pretending to reject. And then took a flight to Thailand and India, using a plane built by thousands of years of human ingenuity and progress which was enabled by trade and exchange, which was in turn facilitated by money... and then reported about it on a computer.

The dude is a 'tard. Wanna live off the grid? Fine, that's cool. But unless you're crafting tools from wood and stone and living in a shelter made of logs with clothes made from grasses and deer skins, then you're just fooling yourself.

A moneyless society is a society of starvation and utter poverty, and a world without trade, production, and exchange is a world without the leisure time one might desire for the purposes of reflecting on such fantastical notions as "a world without money."

I've been putting off coming into this thread because the thread's title seemed absurd, and now that I've finally gotten around to reading the OP's link, I have to give a +1 to evoorhees here.

[BladeMcCool]

LightRider, I want to understand exactly how this resource based economy works. Robots collecting resources and building things and meeting human needs sounds nice and all, but who is going to build these robots and why would they bother? Also, how does a resource based economy produce food if the robots break and nobody feels like fixing them? Or if nobody knows how to fix them anymore? What is the incentive for humans in your society to bother getting up out of bed? Who is deciding how the resources will get distributed as well, like what is this scientific method that is going to decide who should eat exatcly what food, and then what if the people who are told 'this is what you are going to eat' are not entirely happy with those scientific determinations? And what if there are more than one society here on this planet competing for the same resources? What kind of protocols will they use to get what they want without destroying the whole planet in a scrap over it?

I fail to see how a rather undefined and meaningless concept of a 'resource based economy' can even have the word economy attached to it, or have anything to do with the fundamental human action that would be required to bring such a thing into existence. Just remember, I'm not going to repair that robot unless I get to decide who eats the food it collects.

Money is whatever you want it to be, as long as it gets you the resources you want to live your life the way you want it. There are no hand-outs in life, and a resource-based handout economy will not happen, because those with the brains to build the robots and stuff will be quite content to watch everyone else starve. Sorry.

[LightRider]

Sorry.

It is interesting to note that every major, seemingly impossible achievement in the course of human scientific endeavor has been accompanied by the few but vocal individuals that cry out how they are impossible and not worth attempting.

But you are obviously the lone voice of unassailable reason that is totally correct on this particular issue. How wrong I was. I shall report back to the others and we shall cease our efforts.

Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you.

[acoindr]

While I was gathering my thoughts for reply to @LightRider's automated moneyless robotic society I read @BladeMcCool's reply which touched on some of my points.

@LightRider - Since the idea sounds noble I tried to extrapolate it using best case scenarios. There are problems.

TL;DR: the world is not ready for it; even if it was the results are not pleasant due to limited resources.

So the idea is to switch from competition to cooperation, right? And utilize our technology and intelligence to freely sustain all. In a way, the Earth is like a giant petri dish, and humans take part in an elaborate experiment. What happens when humans (or any organism) are freely given conditions to survive and procreate? That is what they do.

Do you know why there are always poor and starving people? It's because the poor and starving continue to procreate. But now robots will gather food and build houses to freely give humans as fast as they come into existence... The world population would then explode, unless you take a Chinese-like policy of limiting by force procreation (including murdering newborns). But surely such an egalitarian society would be pro-life.

Would cultures like the Chinese, who are way ahead in population, then begin competing to ensure their own cultural dominance, possibly out-breed the rest? Language and culture are, after all, as important as money for influence on society.

Putting aside that issue, what about quality of life? In a money-less, free society nobody owns, but rather shares everything, right? Since nobody has to work I imagine people would opt to take lots of leisure time. Places like beaches, parks, and forests would likely be popular, perhaps too popular? Since our population is now rapidly increasing I imagine overcrowding would go from noticeable, to annoying, to intolerable, everywhere. And how is geographical preference divvied up, anyway? I imagine very few would volunteer to live in Antarctica, while warmer more temperate land space would be in high demand. But, alas, everywhere would soon feel the overcrowding, even with a clever turn-based system implemented.

It becomes apparent to me mankind would have to expand beyond Earth to continue this model. But now where to go? The next best planet for humans to inhabit is Mars which has only about 15-25% of the natural living comfort of Earth, even if we figured out how to get there in less than 5 years. What we would need is another Earth-like planet, really Earth-like for habitability, so we'd have to search beyond our solar system. Getting to the next closest star is a monumental challenge, even for such an advanced civilization, and even then there is no guarantee of finding something like Earth, which is quite a jewel as far as planets go. And moving from interstellar to intergalactic travel? Forget it.

No, we're pretty much limited to Earth.

But this means all these different cultures, interests, and aspirations have to get along in an increasingly confined space. And what about religion? Does this society respect people's freedom of religion, or impose some subjective higher morality? A good deal of the population still believe, and are willing to die for their religious beliefs, which can be anathema to others and don't always synchronize with modernization.

And what about others, as @BladeMcCool talked about, who simply don't agree with that approach. They might look to sabotage robots and otherwise disrupt the system. How would enforcement/protection of society work?

The thing about Capitalism is that it works, effectively divides and allocates resources, and is fair. And Capitalism, as I noted, does not prevent gifting, sharing, and cooperation. People may want to pin the problems of humanity on it, but that's being naive.

[LightRider]

While I was gathering my thoughts for reply to @LightRider's automated moneyless robotic society I read @BladeMcCool's reply which touched on some of my points.

@LightRider - Since the idea sounds noble I tried to extrapolate it using best case scenarios. There are problems.

TL;DR: the world is not ready for it; even if it was the results are not pleasant due to limited resources.

So the idea is to switch from competition to cooperation, right? And utilize our technology and intelligence to freely sustain all. In a way, the Earth is like a giant petri dish, and humans take part in an elaborate experiment. What happens when humans (or any organism) are freely given conditions to survive and procreate? That is what they do.

Do you know why there are always poor and starving people? It's because the poor and starving continue to procreate. But now robots will gather food and build houses to freely give humans as fast as they come into existence... The world population would then explode, unless you take a Chinese-like policy of limiting by force procreation (including murdering newborns). But surely such an egalitarian society would be pro-life.

Would cultures like the Chinese, who are way ahead in population, then begin competing to ensure their own cultural dominance, possibly out-breed the rest? Language and culture are, after all, as important as money for influence on society.

Putting aside that issue, what about quality of life? In a money-less, free society nobody owns, but rather shares everything, right? Since nobody has to work I imagine people would opt to take lots of leisure time. Places like beaches, parks, and forests would likely be popular, perhaps too popular? Since our population is now rapidly increasing I imagine overcrowding would go from noticeable, to annoying, to intolerable, everywhere. And how is geographical preference divvied up, anyway? I imagine very few would volunteer to live in Antarctica, while warmer more temperate land space would be in high demand. But, alas, everywhere would soon feel the overcrowding, even with a clever turn-based system implemented.

It becomes apparent to me mankind would have to expand beyond Earth to continue this model. But now where to go? The next best planet for humans to inhabit is Mars which has only about 15-25% of the natural living comfort of Earth, even if we figured out how to get there in less than 5 years. What we would need is another Earth-like planet, really Earth-like for habitability, so we'd have to search beyond our solar system. Getting to the next closest star is a monumental challenge, even for such an advanced civilization, and even then there is no guarantee of finding something like Earth, which is quite a jewel as far as planets go. And moving from interstellar to intergalactic travel? Forget it.

No, we're pretty much limited to Earth.

But this means all these different cultures, interests, and aspirations have to get along in an increasingly confined space. And what about religion? Does this society respect people's freedom of religion, or impose some subjective higher morality? A good deal of the population still believe, and are willing to die for their religious beliefs, which can be anathema to others and don't always synchronize with modernization.

And what about others, as @BladeMcCool talked about, who simply don't agree with that approach. They might look to sabotage robots and otherwise disrupt the system. How would enforcement/protection of society work?

The thing about Capitalism is that it works, effectively divides and allocates resources, and is fair. And Capitalism, as I noted, does not prevent gifting, sharing, and cooperation. People may want to pin the problems of humanity on it, but that's being naive.

We find that population growth declines in a technologically advanced and well educated society. The rapid reproduction rates found in rural, undeveloped and impoverished areas of the world would not be reflected in such a global society.

We have far more land available to us that most people think. The ability to build vertically, increase efficiency in terms of agricultural production, the ability to build cities on the ocean and other environments previously thought inhospitable will increase the physical space available to any increase in population, assuming that it even continues at rates that you are concerned about. Human beings are slightly different that other animals and microbes. Our behavior is highly influenced by social customs, education and other factors.

Human beings, in general, desire to learn and explore. As children, we desire new experiences constantly, and will constantly test the boundaries of our environment to learn about the world around us. Modern society has worked very hard over centuries to diminish that desire in us, by regimenting us into public schools, perform mindless tasks and otherwise disabuse people of their desire to be creative, intelligent and selfless. Fortunately, humanity continues to be all of these things, even at the reduced levels encouraged by the various institutions that have worked against us. In the absence of the profit motive, false authority and the crippling mechanisms of a failed monetary system, we will be free to continue our exploration, learning and creativity and be far more productive, contribute more to society and be less vulnerable to the predatory efforts of those who would seek to cripple us again. Leisure is not the goal of humanity, but the false reward that is always promised by the monetary system. I know of no person who is inherently lazy, but many have been conditioned so thoroughly by society that it is their ultimate goal to be in such a state. I challenge anyone to try to do absolutely nothing for extended periods of time and see how long until they reject the notion that remaining in such a state is satisfactory.

Related to the above, I doubt that everyone will want to live in the same place at the same time. There are so many places to visit on this planet, that it is unlikely that a person would want to stay in one location for the entirety of their life. Not everyone wants to live on the beach, or in the mountains or by the rivers of the world. With the technology to build cities anywhere, and the lack of incentive to hoard private property, we will be a very mobile society.

Regarding culture, we rely on education to promote the fact that we all share one planet, that no one nation, culture or individual is more important or deserves more or less than any other. We can take the lessons of biology and show that if the organs of your body competed for resources, you would die. So too with our species and our planet. Declaring the whole earth as common heritage for all people is fundamental to fostering the kind of scientific understandings necessary to bring about such a radical shift in society.

Technological innovation, not capitalism, is what works, and will continue to do so after we leave the old and obsolete systems of capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism etc. behind.

[BladeMcCool]

LightRider, you did not address any of my questions I posed in trying to understand your proposed system. I think you do not have any real appreciation for the immensity of specialization and individual motivations of the human beings involved that has brought about all the technology we have today. And yet you seem to think that going forward we can somehow forget all that. It seems like nonsense.

[acoindr]

We find that population growth declines in a technologically advanced and well educated society.

True, and this is the one consideration I had when I said the world is not ready for such a system. The majority of the world is not well educated. Even in the U.S., the most advanced country the world has ever seen, literacy an education are shockingly lower than most would expect. But even so, some people simply believe in large families.

The rapid reproduction rates found in rural, undeveloped and impoverished areas of the world would not be reflected in such a global society.

That depends on when you started passing out the food and houses   If you did it now you'd certainly get a jack-rabbit effect.

We have far more land available to us that most people think. The ability to build vertically, increase efficiency in terms of agricultural production, the ability to build cities on the ocean and other environments previously thought inhospitable will increase the physical space available to any increase in population, assuming that it even continues at rates that you are concerned about.

Yes, we could maximize our existing capacity. But there is still a limit, somewhere.

Human beings are slightly different that other animals and microbes. Our behavior is highly influenced by social customs, education and other factors.

Very true. Humans also uniquely appreciate the value of occasional solitude and independence.

As children, we desire new experiences constantly, and will constantly test the boundaries of our environment to learn about the world around us. Modern society has worked very hard over centuries to diminish that desire in us, by regimenting us into public schools, perform mindless tasks and otherwise disabuse people of their desire to be creative, intelligent and selfless.

And your proof for this is? Some of the smartest people in the world are from the U.S., a country that has certainly tested boundaries. Children are certainly encouraged to be free and explore. You're confusing us with China.

Leisure is not the goal of humanity, but the false reward that is always promised by the monetary system.

I'm not sure you are the person to say what is or is not the goal of humanity.

I know of no person who is inherently lazy, but many have been conditioned so thoroughly by society that it is their ultimate goal to be in such a state. I challenge anyone to try to do absolutely nothing for extended periods of time and see how long until they reject the notion that remaining in such a state is satisfactory.

Sure, many would rather not be idle if they are free to pick what they are to do, but that is not work. How many would work voluntarily doing something they would rather not without being compensated?

Related to the above, I doubt that everyone will want to live in the same place at the same time. There are so many places to visit on this planet, that it is unlikely that a person would want to stay in one location for the entirety of their life. Not everyone wants to live on the beach, or in the mountains or by the rivers of the world. With the technology to build cities anywhere, and the lack of incentive to hoard private property, we will be a very mobile society.

Like I said, there is a limit on number of people. The simple fact is the more people after the same resources the higher chance of tension. It's human/animal nature. Sorry.

Regarding culture, we rely on education to promote the fact that we all share one planet, that no one nation, culture or individual is more important or deserves more or less than any other. We can take the lessons of biology and show that if the organs of your body competed for resources, you would die. So too with our species and our planet. Declaring the whole earth as common heritage for all people is fundamental to fostering the kind of scientific understandings necessary to bring about such a radical shift in society.

Yes, but how rapidly, effectively, and thoroughly will you educate? Will it be through forced indoctrination or freedom of choice? Even now under good circumstances we see high drop out rates, drug usage, and crime in the US. Removing money from society doesn't guarantee a fundamental change in human nature.

Technological innovation, not capitalism, is what works, and will continue to do so after we leave the old and obsolete systems of capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism etc. behind.

In case  you haven't noticed, capitalism is not communism, socialism, or facism. And it's capitalism that has largely been responsible for the technological innovation we see to date.

[cbeast]

LightRider, you did not address any of my questions I posed in trying to understand your proposed system. I think you do not have any real appreciation for the immensity of specialization and individual motivations of the human beings involved that has brought about all the technology we have today. And yet you seem to think that going forward we can somehow forget all that. It seems like nonsense.

I've been following this thread to best my sensibilities can muster. Most of the arguments in favor of "natural money" are based upon a priori statements dressed up as a "theory" with nothing scientific to back it up as a theory. Money /= Greed. These terms cannot be used interchangeably. I prefer Occam's Razor to reveal the Null Hypothesis. Here it is. Humans evolved from other animals. No other known animal has ever needed money. Therefore, humans do not need money. Truth can usually be stated very simply. Complex arguments that are trying to demonstrate something that should seem simple are often filled with fallacies.

[acoindr]

Humans evolved from other animals. No other known animal has ever needed money. Therefore, humans do not need money.

Non sequitur.

Humans do many things animals do not, like climb Mount Everest and produce sculptures.

[cbeast]

Humans evolved from other animals. No other known animal has ever needed money. Therefore, humans do not need money.

Non sequitur.

Humans do many things animals do not, like climb Mount Everest and produce sculptures.

Humans do not need to do those things either. There is no argument for need.