TED Conversations

Kieran Sharp

snowboard coach, blue mile snowsports

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Can we change, can we live without money?

Ancient civilisations achieved a great deal, when focusing their efforts upon whichever problem needed to be solved. Energy, water, food etc.

Where previous civilisations failed to meet the needs of their people we now have the opportunity to learn from them and with greater numbers than has ever been on this planet before.

However we have been distracted for generations.

Our efforts are focussed on acquiring, chasing, and losing money, while real issues such as providing fresh drinking water, food, and energy to all humanity are ignored by the majority of us.

The problem with money has become so complex and yet its source energy is greed, and we know this to be destructive in all forms of relationship.

Why would we continue to face the world’s problems using the biggest source of distraction in humanity to get us there?

It is insanity to believe that we need “new world order” and world currency to solve these issues.

A thought:

Imagine everyone today who’s role in human civilisation is to protect and serve money (bankers, accountants, so on and so on) where to be suddenly un-employed.
What figure would that be?
How many working hours would there be available for other more productive tasks in society?

Imagine there is no money. What do we need? How much of it do we need?

Can we meet our needs as a civilisation with the quantities we require vs the amount of time and human energy we have?
Can we stand as ONE to achieve this?

There are more questions, there are more problems, change is coming one way or another, and time is running out.

+5
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: No you need money to exchange things unless you want to barter which would quickly become unwieldy.

    One of the truths of a happy life is to stay out of debt.

    The definition of economics is the study of scarce resources that have alternative uses. Think about that definition...
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: "No you need money to exchange things unless you want to barter which would quickly become unwieldy."

      In Samoa food is there for the taking. Coconuts and fruit grow without cultivation, fish are available in the nearby sea, little or no clothing is needed, and it doesn't take long to put up a thatched-roof hut from materials that grow on all sides. There is no money or barter. Since there is abundance of everything, they only take what they need. There is no reason for stealing or owning anything.

      "One of the truths of a happy life is to stay out of debt."

      Taxes are debts...

      "The definition of economics is the study of scarce resources that have alternative uses."

      And how does the monetary system take the biosphere and its resources into account? It doesn't. It looks at resources as externalities in the economic equation, which is nuts. Instead of counting money, we should be counting the balance of the Earth’s resources on a scientific basis.

      There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the monetary system seeks efficiency, balance or sustainability of natural resources, which we all are dependent on. Instead corporations depletes the resources in a rate that is soon at the point of no return, uses inefficient energy sources that pollutes the air and contaminates our drinking water, all this in order to keep the price up on the products they sell. And you call this an economy?
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: Are you saying that people don't exchange with each other on Samoa?

        As the resources become scarcer the price goes up which economizes on those resources. Currently oil is going up in price so alternatives become viable because of he higher price. As people say you must be a green company or I will not buy from you the scarce resources must be processed in a alternative manner or the company will have no customers.
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2012: "Are you saying that people don't exchange with each other on Samoa?"

          Yes, because there is no need for exchanging anything when there is abundance. Everybody has access to what they need. What exactly don't you understand by this statement?

          "As the resources become scarcer the price goes up which economizes on those resources. Currently oil is going up in price so alternatives become viable because of he higher price. As people say you must be a green company or I will not buy from you the scarce resources must be processed in a alternative manner or the company will have no customers."

          Resources only becomes scarce because companies and corporations make them scarce deliberately in order to keep the price up. This is the main incentive for any corporation that wants to maintain a competitive edge. Efficient use of resources is the enemy of the profit game and is therefore an unsustainable and utterly stupid way of allocating resources.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: What I don't understand is that it would be one of the few places that does not use money. The other thing that I don't understand is that this website contradicts what you are saying:

        https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ws.html

        The thing about making something scarce to keep the price up is that competition comes into the market with a lower price. In other words it doesn't work. Efficient use of resources is the name of the game in the free market.

        You are going to come back with another of your delusions of which let me say in advance that I don't agree but do no have time for this.
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2012: I am sorry you feel this way. And I am sorry you don't have the ability or capability to want to learn other concepts, which is quite ironic when you continuously comment on a site which explicitly explores such ideas for a better tomorrow. It's a shame that some people only come here to superimpose their values without any critical thought to as why they have them in the first place.
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2012: Mats Samoa is a very bad example. The Australian government supplies millions of dollars in aid to Samoa each year and more than half os the samoan population lives in either New Zealand or Australia so they can work and send money home.
        $45.5 million this year in aid
        • thumb
          Oct 12 2012: I was obviously talking about Samoa in a historical sense, before the industrialization happened globally. This was actually the case in Africa as well. Africa was never a poor continent, before it got industrialized and people had to start working for money to survive and receive slave wages in return. Land was just taken from the inhabitants in Africa and therefore they had to submit to labor in order to survive. The same could be said for Samoa.
        • thumb
          Oct 12 2012: Mats I hardly recognize you, until of course I read what you said, as your words are uniquely incredible.

          Surely the Samoans retained enough coconut trees and fishing grounds in the cornucopia to get by?
    • Oct 10 2012: "No you need money to exchange things"

      You need something to use as a medium of exchange but it doesn't follow that you can repackage that medium of exchange into complex derivative products or that the people who have the most of it can sit back and let it multiply itself.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.