This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is There a Future for Money?
In our digital age, where banks and even nations fail through reckless monetary spending and policies, it seems that our monetary system is becoming the big elephant in the room, yes even obsolete. Automation replacing humans seems to be one of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism and may be the demise of the system itself leaving the looming possibility of fascism or military dictatorship to arise and flourish if we fail to arrive at any alternatives.
While some believe taking us back to the gold standard will fix things, and others believe that debt forgiveness is the solution, we hear talks about access/resource based economies, where we simply declare all of Earth's resources as the common heritage of mankind and make goods and services available to all without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude, through technological abundance.
In fact, let's rephrase the question. At what point in the future do you think that our technology will make automated systems possible and allow us to move out of a monetary system?
Pie Nkvien
We must understand that there's enough technology to make heaven on earth, but that there's not enough earth for everyone to waste gigantic energy on useless things. So we must become aware and enjoy life with respect to the limits of nature.
Once at that level, we'll kick Hummer-drivers in re-education programmes (jails won't exist anymore) (I know Hummers went the way of the dino's, but I'm sure you get the idea) and honor those who do most good for society (helping old people to cross the street). This honoring can be with some form of cash. Maybe people giving something to those do-gooders. Like gifts or donations to smart ideas on Kickstarter or Indiegogo as very first seeds of this new way.
This makes me wonder how Ghandi made his living. Donations I guess.
So there's always a need for money. We don't really need to value things (at a certain common awareness) but do need to value actions somehow. But money doesn't need to be specifically in cows or coins or paper or 'likes'. And it also doesn't need to be a representation of products created/sold. It can be based on what people feel someone is deserving or even needing. So those out of luck don't have to worry about food or shelter.
Christopher Melvin
Pie Nkvien
chen xin
James Zhang 30+
chen xin
James Zhang 30+
John Smith 30+
No, at least not any future I would want to live in, so not money as we know it at least, but some kind of accounting currency may prove necessary (even in Star Trek some things are rationed because there just isn't enough energy around for everyone to indulge in everything).
Krisztián Pintér 200+
and how is that not money? what is money in your book?
John Smith 30+
@Jon Ho
Non-transferable money allows for private property and different levels of compensation, so it doesn't imply communism.
Jon Ho
Danylo Vashchilenko
Jaime Lubin 10+
dennie allen
Mats Kaarbö 10+
What do you mean?
dennie allen
Suketu Shah
This is an excellent thought and i am for it and in complete line with your thoughts and i also believe that this is the only way to create awareness in all country. now the next step would be how to set up these awareness through internet media and be a part of that movement... all over the world...
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Chung Truong Thanh 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Ken brown 30+
Hidayet Heydarov
For instance, one person gives fish to another, instead of it he takes rice. Then after strong developments this type of exchange substituted with money. This is value of leaflet called 'MONEY'. Till nowadays Money had really the most important function in our life. But in last years, money is losing it's value because of computer generation.
Online payment systems, Plastic card using, Bank projects made money useless. That's why I see money's future as a useless leaflet. I wanna say moreover that it's not the last one. After some centuries new generation will come to human life...
David Felcan
Midas World by Fredrick Pohl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World
and
Singularity Sky by Charles Stross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_Sky - this one talks about what happens when a rigid, controlling society is exposed to an "invasion" of a society with nearly infinite productive capability called "The Festival"
David Felcan
I think we need to have some agreement about the purpose of money. To my mind, the purpose of money is that it allocates the products of human and machine labor to various peoples. Whether you like money or hate it, or think its fair or unfair, I think that we can generally agree that it currently does this.
You are positing that essentially technology will eventually become so productive that there will be no limits, and therefore no need to decide who gets what because everyone will be able to have everything that they want.
But there isn't a limit on human need (and there are still many fixed resources - land, water, air, energy, etc.), so I don't see money becoming obsolete in the sense of it providing a way to distribute goods and services. What an entirely automated society does obsolete is the fact that money can be earned through some sort of labor. We are positing now a future where there are thinking machines that can do creative/informational/research labor as well as producing all physical goods.
In such a society, no one can make any claims to more resources than anyone else, because everyone is equally (non) productive. At least that the reasoning for inequality in a capitalist system. One fair system is for everyone to receive the same stipend - a completely egalitarian society. Another idea is to distribute money based on some other system, like moral worth (niceness = cash?) or some amorphous concept of "need". But this really begs the question of who or what decides these other criterion.
Anyway, I feel to advance the conversation, its not so much about the death of money as it is about the death of work and the death of money from work.
Suketu Shah
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Three ways. Regulate the current mass media. Get the government and corporations to sign a new Broadcasting Act in your country or on an international level that says that socially conscious media, that depict the shortcomings of society and the solutions for it, has to be a part of the channels program. This is not easy and requires an extraordinary amount of signatures or a political party that advocates this act to be implemented.
Another way is to actively boycott certain types of channels and programs in favors of others, which would directly influence the market to get corporations to invest in the programs that you want to watch. This is not easy either, cause this requires a critical mass of people being aware of the possibility of a future without money (in this case) and wanting the channels to change. I would say this is the hardest way to influence the market, since most people don't know what they really want and therefore settle with what the media companies give them. And to be frank, there aren't many channels or programs out there that are socially conscious.
The third way, that I've already touched upon, are individuals and companies, such as you and me, creating new content of socially conscious media to the market, hopefully creating a new market for businesses and corporations to come in and say this is something we want to invest in thus ushering forward the socially conscious media on a global scale. I would argue that this is the best method we have at the moment given the current state of mass media.
To expand on this a little further, I would argue that internet is the greatest liberator of our time thus a potential market for mass awareness since it's basically free and has little to no regulation from governments or corporations. A YouTube video can be watched over and over again by hundreds of millions all over the world at the same time and be translated to all languages.
Hope this helps.
Stefan H. Farr
In this culture, the monetary system is an absolute necessity: we do not measure our value based on "who we are", or "what we do", but by "what we have". And "what we have" is a tangible physical thing that needs a measurement unit to weigh against, be that gold, assets or local monetary currencies. The instability of these measurement units are only evidence to the transiency of that what they measure (possessions and the need for them), and cannot be assimilated with signs for the "demise of the monetary system". People loose faith in a currency, because of its instability, and that currency might disappear altogether, but the monetary system is here to stay as long as we need to measure "what we have".
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I couldn't agree more. It's an educational issue and until people see the benefit of a society that embraces science and technology, we are still stuck in this mess.
Arthanari Chandrasekaran
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Suketu Shah
Mats Kaarbö 10+
jesus nieblas
Craig Patterson 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
That's because the "most intelligent" people in the current socioeconomic system are the economists and they see natural resources and what naturally keeps us alive as an externality. If you cannot profit on it, it's basically an externality. The fact is that the monetary system is totally disconnected with the real world and the preservation of resources. It simply doesn't give a damn. And it's the system that perpetuate this kinda behavior. It's not people that are unsane, it's the system. It has always been.
pat gilbert 50+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
pat gilbert 50+
All resources become scarce.
Chung Truong Thanh 50+
Suketu Shah
i agree that capitalism has put an end but not everywhere in the world...if you look at the world population verses number of people still leave below poverty line, i am sure it would come more than 60%.....but in any case i didn't meant hunger issue as important than other issues....i tried to make more emphasis on - each human on this plant should get basic necessity to live and thereby whatever resources on our plant would be utilised in a manner which balances every aspect of human life as well as animal & other life. food is just one part but more than food and hunger, it is something else which i feel is important & thats the point which could change the pattern of thinking of all decision makers in all nation unanimously.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
more in this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Get your facts straight. Before industrial complexes, and the monetary system with it, infiltrated the larger part of Africa, the inhabitants had an abundance of natural resources that feed, sheltered and provided the Africans with everything they needed. Now, that the monetary system is fully installed, people have to pay for their own natural abundant resources they had available for free before. And with little or no education, Africans only get slavery wages that is a result of being exploited by big business in the West. On top of that, the previous clean water systems that the Africans had is and has been for a long time being contaminated by the same industrial complexes that settled their industries there for profit reason. Go globalization!
To prove my point, a World Hunger Education Service report (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm) "revealed" that "the world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food."
The root problem to all human suffering is our current socioeconomic system. It's the way we allocate our resources, through the money/price/profit system, which causes all the poverty.
If you fail to see that, I highly recommend you reading up on how automation and technology can provide the necessities of life and a high standard of living to all by reading the book "The Best That Money Can't Buy".
John Smith 30+
"usd 11k is still luxury. ppp is there to adjust for local price levels. but we don't have to worry about that too much, just look around. poor people in the US has air conditioning, car, 1000 sq ft house/flat, flat TV, microwave, smartphone and such things."
When you make $11k in the US you sure as hell don't have 1000sq ft house (unlike many rural families in India living off $2 per day), a flat tv is cheaper than a non-flat one these days (and again, many people in the third world have a tv), people making 11k rarely have a smartphone, they can afford less education and health care than a Brazilian making 6k and they are often in debt.
John Smith 30+
I wasn't aware North Korea and Cuba housed two billion people... Africa and India are capitalistic.
"the US poverty line is a bad joke. 21600 USD per year is a freaking luxury! "
The official US poverty line is $11k for a single person and you can't just compare that to other countries because in some countries the real estate bubble is more inflated than in others, among other things.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
usd 11k is still luxury. ppp is there to adjust for local price levels. but we don't have to worry about that too much, just look around. poor people in the US has air conditioning, car, 1000 sq ft house/flat, flat TV, microwave, smartphone and such things.
Kevin Stephens
A world without money means that the resources the world has must be managed and delegated by a governing body who will do this fairly.. but you skirt dangerously close to Communism when you discuss a governing body for delegation of resources. It's especially touchy when you're talking about who gets what lifestyle, how people are provided for, what is fair? A new governing system would have to be created, and treat the world fairly, and as one people.
I think the positive effects of a society with no money would be unfathomable - imagine the effects on modern day slavery, homelessness, unemployment, possession/money related criminal acts, etc.
The negative effects are unimaginable too. It would not eliminate greed, just change its face. Whatever becomes a valuable skill or resource would entice the greedy to use whatever they can to get it. The new resource wouldn't be as easy to handle as money but that is only a hindrance.Think of prisons with cigarettes for bartering. People with more carpentry skills would be given gifts to do some work for others - multiply that by 10, 50, 100 years and you'll see people becoming wealthy in a different way.
Suketu Shah mentioned getting a natural born good leader with followers to start the ball rolling. I think that's necessary because people feel empowered as a group. Suketu, even great leaders started out with 1 person who believed in them - anyone can be that leader. Furthermore, those leaders do exist today.. Imagine if Oprah Winfrey had one press release saying 'lets talk about how to distribute the world's resources fairly.' Millions would participate, and she's not the only one with that influence.
Simon Sinek's talk (link below) skirts around the idea of making change. People will come because they feel the idea is their idea too, not because they were convinced they should do it by a smooth talker.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.htm
Mats Kaarbö 10+
This 'government' of allocating resources doesn't need to be managed by humans. We could easily automate this process with a cybernetic government that merely serves the needs of people and DOES NOT control the actions of the people, what they need and when they need it. Let me repeat that, a cybernetic government that SERVES the peoples needs and DOES NOT control the actions of the people. A cybernetic government would, in fact trillion times faster than humans, keep track of available resources and show us (humans) continuously how to live sustainable within the boundaries of natural resources available on Earth. Keep in mind, a machine doesn't have feelings, ambition or any creative thought that hasn't been programmed by humans in the first place. Therefore, humans would always be in control. Every human would be a government body in their own. Where they choose what they want to do and when and how to pursue it. But... In order to live sustainable with this kinda of access to materials and resources, we (humans) need a drastic value change that perpetuate sharing of resources, collaboration and how to get along with each other instead of narrow self-interest, competition and isolating yourself with the world. This train of thought in symbiosis with an access based economy, where every need is met, would naturally change the way we think and therefore phase out destructive human behaviors such as greed, hunger for power and every other non-nonsensical behaviors perpetuated by the current socioeconomic system.
Kevin Stephens
Personally, I am pro-computer and your recommendation makes sense.
Recommending a cybernetic 'government' sounds insane but... Envision your idyllic Democracy ... ooo nice. Now envision what it really is. Oh. :(.
Imagine your idyllic cybernetic government. ooo nice. Could the real one be worse than Democracy turned out to be?
I personally think a cybernetic government freeing people from working for the necessities of life is awesome. I want that so bad. People not working to survive could work in their own best interest to keep the system as fair as possible. People could chase their own desires, ultimately be happier.
Or on the flip side..
'Wealth' would take a new form, causing some to want to corrupt the governmental system undetectably, result in 'bullies' who go after your allocation of daily resources, who knows. The imagination of need and greed knows no boundaries.
My only other thought is 'What would happen if it became ultimately evident that humanity needed population control.' I think we do now, but everyone wants proof. This kind of system would provide incontrovertible proof.
So what if it's a FACT that there isn't enough for everyone. We invent a new grain? Some reports say the last grain wasn't such a wonderful solution.
Would society change its reproductive habits if a computer told them we don't have enough resources to feed more? We SHOULD curb our population down to a reasonable level now, but will we? I've though at times that we have a bill of human rights, shouldn't we have bills of rights for other species too? Access to necessities of life, etc. It would be possible, if humanity depopulated by a fair percentage.
First thing first. Employ the cybernetic government, having created a plan for the foreseeable issues and hurdle the rest of the problems when they rear their ugly heads.
Viva computers and our faith in them!
Mats Kaarbö 10+
This is why relevant education is so important and emphasized. I feel that we can educate people out of certain types of negative behaviors if the environment meets their needs. If we teach people about dynamic equilibrium, how to live sustainable within the boarders of natural resources and how to relate to one another, we would not see any type of aberrant behavior such as somebody trying to corrupt the system. In fact, if people got everything they needed, there would be no incentive to take control on that which provides them with the necessities of life.
"'What would happen if it became ultimately evident that humanity needed population control.'"
This is also an educational issue. If people are educated or given a system to provide them with that statistics (cybernetic system) on how much the Earth can produce, in terms of natural resources, to meet the needs of the population and to make a high standard of living for all (if that is desired), I feel that people would refrain to have children, because it would ultimately decrease their standard of living. Population control is not needed to an education population.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
A World Hunger Education Service report (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm) "revealed" that "the world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food."
If there, however, was a natural catastrophe that damaged the larger part of our agriculture/food supply, we would obviously grow food in labs as an temporary solution, till we would get our natural resources up and running again. In fact, we already have the technology to do this. We would combine nanotechnology and biotechnology to take known particles and rearrange them to whatever shape or form we would like and create healthy and nutritious food in a clinical lab with no distortion whatsoever. Think of the endless possibilities we would have food wise in regards to flavors and tastes.
Suketu Shah
But, who controls them?? again we fall back in the same circle... who gives sponsorship to this media...they will not promote anything if people like you and me goes the media & asked them to promote sustainability programme, education etc in their main channel .......the reality is that we all are attracted to this glamorous world so much that media makes sure to change mindsets of people and every individual person...we need person like Gandhi, martin luthor king, nelson mandela, and such other personalities again in this world who carries masses with them for the right causes and in fact such personalities would appear back as soon as nature wants them to be back to move masses towards the right cause...but i am not sure of a person who whould appear and moves whole world as one nation to make sure basic necessities would be available to all humans in this world..and than comes money, profits, etc etc
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Who controls what?
Marshall Thomas
gerard3161 jones
I mean that we care about eachother, sometimes words have more value then money.
Think this is possible with little effort to help eachother in life. People have to share what they feel,working together,concern about our environment,community etc.
We only need the money for basic needs to live a normal life like food, a house,healthcare etc.
At this time the world needs only love and this we cant buy,we just have to make a little effort to start with and will cost nothing.
John Moonstroller 20+
When a machine has hand and eye coordination and recognition like a human, Automation will take over, assuming we have the energy to power the machines.
Money will always be useful unless automaton coupled with unlimited resources will allow anyone to have anything they want anytime they want it.
Money allows people to have things they cannot build themselves. People will always need money because it is an easy commodity of trade. It really doesn't matter if it is made of gold or paper as long as it is the agreeable unit of trade.
Gold, being a useful commodity vs paper which can be created from plants sources a renewable source, which makes paper the reasonable choice for the unit of trade. A unit of trade is simply an agreement between all parties that this unit will buy so much of a certain commodity. If paper can buy gold, why carry around something that weighs so much more than paper?
Technology will make automated systems possible and allow us to move out of a monetary system when it can make anything we want with no assistance from humans. But, Technology is not the only factor needed to move away from the monetary system. We also need unlimited resources.
Jay Milton
Craig Patterson 10+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
hcdoitsu gotweed
on something that has no intrinsic value. How dumb is that? If making weapons was not profitable then there would be no arms industry, hence, fewer arms. Sit down and write a list of all the problems we would not have if profit were not an issue. A money based economy is a necessary stage in the development of human society; when that stage is ending it is folly to try to maintain the status quo. Sounds a little bit like a mad old Jew I admired once upon a time. Imagine an economist trying to explain to a feudal lord that the money economy was coming and he was going.. Okay, I've stated the problem now let's see if one ignorant old man can come up with a solution. Establish the GNP of the nation for the past year and dole out the money to people based on their relative contributions to the whole. Here's the hard part: every person that lives in and on america is an employee of America. If you consume, you contribute and you are entitled to a living wage. Think what could happen if you could make as much "money" building things as we now make destroying things and people. Lots of problems in the above, but it''s an option. And here's the rub, we don't have anyone who will even consider it as something to investigate. Essentially what we have are two political parties that are offering us two different ways to maintain the status quo.
bart hsi
Genevieve Tran 50+
Automation, at least in the developed world, is already at the point where vast, vast amounts of money are being moved by hedge funds or financial institutions with assets greater than combined GDPs of numerous countries put together every day, and nobody thinks about it. These industries are so hard to monitor and regulate, yet their impact is so great, the humans at the lever-controls are unable to tame it, should an infinitesimally small butterfly gets in the mechanism and flaps its unpredictable wing.
In consumer society, people (and children) are less and less able to recognize what they are spending when they just swipe a card and it leads to over spending and debt, through an inflated sense of real income.
I think we have to realize that the automation of money is a vastly complicated machine, way bigger than any Terminator, that will come back from the future and have the potential to vapourize all that we've built up in the past. In addition, without Financial Literacy even being taught in schools ANYwhere, having humans at the lever-controls of this machine is laughable.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Automation of production and distribution of goods and services that would phase out the need for money, banks, financial institutions, industry and any other forms of labor and jobs that is given a certain group of concentrated wealth and "power", so that everybody has equal right to the resources provided for them by Earth.