A line that reminds me of an old comment about communism; “An interesting idea. With a different species, it might actually work.” I’m sure that society could become less materialistic ( not that I’m all that anti-materialism myself, mind you ); but how would you get everyone, everywhere to become good little anti-materialists without force? And as for “a world of rational thinkers”, forget it; humans are anything but. Any well functioning society needs to be built with the assumption of human irrationality; a utopia built for perfect people won’t work when you populate it with flawed people.
As Money is simply a medium of exchange, it would not be possible to have no Money. If we remove what we currently call “Money”, some alternate form of exchange MUST be created.
Which would just be another form of Money.
Then try thinking of a consumable good. Like bread. Or gasoline. If I make bread, shouldn’t I be able to trade it for something else? If I trade it for something else, shouldn’t there be a system that tracks how much I contribute to the pool of goods vs. someone else? So then I’d know how much society owes me? Or you think it’s fair to just give up my goods, my production, my time and services, for nothing in return?
People usually require some motivation to do things like that, and technology is capable of having built in security measures… if they get around those and are doing this just for ‘kicks’ as you say then let them have it… if they hurt someone in the process then that obviously needs to be dealt with. (again criminal psychologist type job).
As far as owning stuff. I never said you couldn’t. Just big things like trains, planes, cinemas, schools, etc… those things would be public.
You could own whatever you wanted to. there is no threat of someone stealing it, and there is no reason if something breaks or you lose it you can’t get a replacement. but you could own a home, as long as you claim that as your personal residence… you couldn’t own more than one home (maybe 2 - i dunno what they plan)… but if you found a place while vacationing that you preferred there is no reason you couldn’t just stay there and make that your new residence.
Yeah but that’s you personally. Me, on the other hand, I want my own set of golf clubs, that I can practise with, get to know, keep in the house and cherish. Maybe that’s materialistic. Or maybe I want to take good care of them, and ensure they are in perfect condition whenever I use them.
It’s a bit like asking; “why don’t we just have a society like the elves in LOTR?”
The answer: we’re humans; petty, arrogant, short-tempered and selfish (all of us, at least some of the time)
What you’re suggesting is WAAAY outside the paradigm.
You don’t barter anything. But I’ve gone over this several times… video offers a better explanation, but it’s long.
It needs to be a law to (help) protect people from “prosecution” for arbitrary “crimes”.
How about the bankers at those hundreds and hundreds of banks that failed, who lost their jobs? They’re suffering.
I love how you’re pitching this utopian society where everything is free, and then in the next post, you want to make sure that bankers are suffering. Which is it- do you want people to suffer or not?
So you are basically talking about Star Trek, right?
What would turn all the greedy materialists around now into the future rational thinkers?
And I don’t know if you would get to do much drunk driving, unless you or someone very close to you would take up alcohol production. Or would robots do all that, too?
I’d really like a house, too. Somewhere in Norway, on the outskirts of a little town, but not little enough not to have a Liquor Store. A good view over some fjord, with not too many people around, so as not to spoil the atmosphere. And in that house I’d like about four bedrooms, one for me and my future husband, two for the future kids and one guest room. I’d also like a little library in that house, and a little artistic atelier to do some painting when I get the urge. A big kitchen, because I like to bake and cook. Two cars would be great. Two high end computers are a must, as me and the future husband are big gamers. Throw in two cats and I’m set. We can get most furniture from IKEA, I don’t want to be too greedy and materialistic.
Right now what I need to make that a reality is time and money. More money than I will probably ever have, but still there’s a chance if I get the right job and work hard and am responsible with my money.
Could I, or anyone, for that matter, live like that in the perfect world of yours?
No because then we base status on how much you’ve contributed.
What I’ve learned though from this discussion is that people can’t seem to grasp a system where the reward is helping people :\
Also most of these jobs you’re listing would be replaced by machines. The jobs people would be doing are critical thinking and various maintenance. As well as some engineering when the time came.
Jobs that are tedious that no one will do without reward… are going to be phased out as human labor.
It’s already happening. Think of how many jobs once held by humans are now being done by machines. Now fast forward to time when all production is done by machines… where do those people find work?
The problem is with this system technological advancement, while good for production does have its negatives because it’s taking work from people who need those jobs.
With a system that embraces technology and removes the need for money… you now see machines are setting us free from doing mundane tedious work, and letting us do things which are more enjoyable or even more beneficial to society.
I think where things fall down for anarchism, for the foreseeable future, is that people have a lot invested in the status quo. A lot of my fellow travellers like to talk about the State as though it were separate from the people who make it up, somehow. As though those people didn’t believe they had an interest in keeping the system going, but were, I don’t know, just cogs in the Machine or something. Maybe one too many viewing of *Metropolis *at the Student Union Cinema Club or they could just be hopped up on Fair Trade Java, I don’t know.
I’m an anarchist. I believe that if the world were ready to do without the State and private property (in the Real Estate sense), it would be a better world, in every way, than the one we have now. But as much as I believe that, and that Capitalism is immoral, even more I believe that people are just not ready. Wishing they were, won’t make them so. And trying to push them, even just a little, won’t work , either, because who really likes being told what’s better for them by someone else, or that they’re morally wrong in how they live their lives?
I do believe a post-scarcity society* is possible in the very near future, with very little advance in tech. But my debating here on the Dope has shown me that it won’t mean the end of money or the State, because so many people won’t want it to.
So I’m an anarchist who doesn’t think he’ll live to see an anarchist society, ever, absent some truly amazing longevity shifts. And trying to agitate for one is counterproductive. The best we can hope for is to live our lives as much by our principles as society, our relationships with non-anarchists, and our consciences, allow.
So in short, no, it couldn’t work without money. Not the way the Zeitgeist people think. Technology will only save us *after *we change ourselves.
- Let’s not quibble over semantics. “Post-scarcity” is a term of art, with a clear set of meanings that don’t include the strawmannish “energy isn’t free” or “you can’t make land” variants. So when I use it, I use it in the sense that it is used in futurist academic literature, to indicate a post-industrial society where basic manufactured goods, public services and information are free. Yes, that excludes one-of-a-kind jewels, blowjobs and beach houses. Get over it.
Yes. 4 BR house… that’s not a big deal… that particular piece of land, since you have a unique taste then probably you’ll find something. I’m not that picky.
The real problem is the liquor store… it’s probably going to be shipped, if not readily available at some nearby warehouse for pickup.
Though your refrigerator would be able to sense when you were running low on a certain item and then alert the warehouse to automatically send you a replacement. So there’s no need to make anymore trips unless you left something off your list.
But like you said… with this system it’s a dream and not a reality.
And for alcohol production… Why couldn’t it be automated? Most of it is automated actually. Obviously there would be no handpicked hops, but there is no reason we can’t break down the chemical elements of a particular blend and reproduce it in a lab.
Clarity is sacrificed to eloquence: No clear picture is presented of what form of society Zeitgeist proposes as an alternative to the present one, nor of how they propose to get there from here. (Admittedly, The Communist Manifesto also suffers from the first deficiency, though not the second.)
Also let me put it this way… when people work on creating something like a self-driving car they are usually working under some grant, or auto company, or transit company. Lets say there are three separate groups each with an extremely intelligent person, and each one may have a piece of the puzzle to make a moving car a reality.
Because of capitalism, obviously there is some contract binding them from releasing information to a competitor. Because of this the problem goes unsolved.
Without money involved suddenly there is no reason they don’t share the information, and although they are working for free their overall work is reduced.
Open source software is successful because of all the input brought in from many sources. And I personally feel the greatest contributions to computer science have been open source.
This is basically making all technology open source. Thus making all tech safer and more reliable by getting input from all experts and not just the ones you could afford.
That’s just a snippet someone copy pasted from their website… there are a lot of documents I haven’t even bothered to read yet. Not to mention several 2+ hour long podcasts… I am actually kind of turned off because there is too much information. But I honestly can’t say what their exact plans are either.
The end of the movie that I link in my first post explains in general. Supposedly there is an even longer version available to download, but I haven’t taken a look to see if it explains in more detail yet.
Read Steve Taylor’s “The Fall” for an alternative viewpoint.
Disclaimer- I am on dial up and cannot watch the linked films.
I’m not sure how to say what I want to without violating GD rules. I understand very little economics. Nilum seems to understand less than I do.
Nilum I have said before many times on this board that I think within my lifetime (I’m thirty five) we will see manual driving made illegal because self-driving cars have become so cheap, and safe. But I have never said that we could replace all taxi drivers right now as you have said. You keep talking about how we should use technology which does not yet exist.
Re The Amish
AFAIK There are no selfish Amish. This is because upon entering adulthood, Amish teens are given the chance to run free and see the outside world. Most boys buy a sports car during this period. At the end of this time, most Amish give up all English things and go back to the life of piety and austerity. Those who would prefer a life of wealth, quit the Amish world.
Re Native Americans
What the hell is it with some people? The Native Americans weren’t saints who harmed nothing and all lived in brotherhood. Tribes claimed territories. Individuals claimed possessions. Name a tribe. They were as selfish as we are.
The Philadelphia Museum Of Art has Van Gogh’s Rain (View From The Asylum Window). Under the current system, I cannot afford it. In a world without money, what prevents me from taking it?
Oh, certainly I can have a copy made. But it would only be a copy and I want the original. What happens?
Don’t you think fairly isolated, scenic areas in Norway are a scarce resource? What if more people wanted a house like that? I mean, if there’s no law, to regulate which plots of land can be used for what purpose, and no money, so practically anyone with this wish should have it fulfilled. Wouldn’t it get pretty crowded? What if the Robinsons like my house better? Do I have to defend it? Do they wait until I croak it so they can, what exactly? Just take it? File an application? Get a number? Take part in a lottery?
Or are the Robinsons also magically turned into selfless rational people with no material wants and wishes? But then no-one would want anything. How would we regulate people’s material wants?
Oh, and who would be responsible for keeping all this marvellous technology organised? I’m not an expert, but I think that for my refrigerator to order milk, oranges and chocolate, and have it delivered to my house, there needs to be a big infrastructure to back it up. If there was no central organising body, how would it work? And central doesn’t have to be one for the whole world, but for a large enough area so that most goods and services could be effectively managed.
You would be a rational being who would see the wisdom of having that painting remain in the museum to be accessible for all the people who want to see and study it.
If someone wants to study it up close, they organise amongst themselves to take turns and to treat it carefully, and to have it in the museum in rotation so as not to deprive anyone. There would be no fights about who gets to study and examine it first and for how long and using which methods because with all these rational people, everything would be perfectly organised and no-one would have stupid ideas, temper tantrums or ego-trips — as intelligent and educated people never do, because education and intelligence are the answers to everything.