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.

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • Oct 18 2012: One can change, but 'we' can no longer live without money because it is the spearhead of the force of necessity, and because what was once free is no longer so.

    Money is that ‘necessary illusion’ by which the edifice of civilizations is built. This edifice is virtual – that is, it is a synthetic construct in contrast to raw, primordial nature. What is the purpose of civilization? It is to develop technologies (and money is the fuel for this) that serve as tools and enablers for those few individuals who through their art, intellect and creativity, challenge this “virtual reality” edifice to expose its true colors (which is to entice and entrap) and thereby find and realize for themselves what is transcendentally real and which is the highest freedom. Thus money that represents the force of necessity is the counterpart of the force of freedom not only in an abstract sense but also in the most pragmatic sense. ( Money versus Free)

    For a vast majority, technologies are for the purpose of entertainment and pleasure, and for still another minority, technologies are there to fulfill their subliminal urges for destruction – which is the inevitable ‘ends’ of all technologies.
    Thus technology as a ‘means’ or tool can be used both for creating and destroying (this process is the core of the script that ‘runs’ temporal reality), but just as an end in itself, or just for entertainment, means inevitable destruction.

    "'My grandmother taught me respect for the environment and the old Navajo way of discipline and about the Beautyway. She said that all Creation begins at the center from within. If you look at the center of a loom, the colors of a new design will show themselves to you and each design will come only once. She said that the yellow poles that hold up a loom must be strong or the loom will sag and the rug will be crooked. A human has to live between the yellow poles of his life too -- not too poor, not too rich -- to stay in harmony...Navajo weaver Jesse Monongye
  • thumb
    Oct 7 2012: (Continued)
    “Too much money” is the money that exceeds the OPTIMAL POINT of money for a valid-happily living.
    The income of about $6,000/year in US (1/10 of Gallup’s) and < $600 in Vanuatu (Nef’s) ought to be their “optimal points” respectively.
  • thumb
    Oct 5 2012: (Continued)
    The SILLINESS of “invalid happiness” is that it temporarily-apparently makes you happy but brings you suffering in long term.
    Such as, taking junk food, drinking, smoking, drugging, … making too much money.

    Once you know them, you will quit them and NOT BE GREEDY.
  • thumb
    Oct 2 2012: I think:

    Quitting INVALID happiness and all problems will be easy to solve.
    To quit INVALID happiness is easy if one know the silliness of INVALID happiness
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2012: @ Krisztian Pinter:


    you stated: "state and money are not connected. money naturally emerge in every society after the division of labor reaches a certain (very low) level. the only money-less societies are those that refuse to use money on principle. but these societies rely on a surrounding functioning economy to maintain any level of wealth. or they have to go back to stone age level."

    The statement about money and its relation to the state may somewhat be true...it may depend on the size of the population and other complexities.

    Your statement about money naturally emerging I think is false. All because one has a currency does not mean that it was due to some sort of imperative. The simple fact is that we do have money and use it for means of currency but this does not mean that money is an imperative. I think human life could be just fine without money...

    the issue with money is that it stimulates the reward system in our brains and I think this is something it that is conditioned, not innate.

    My last point that I want to touch upon is your statement about the money-less societies having to rely on the global economy to maintain their stability. I have two things I'd like for you to consider:

    1) have you ever thought about why these autonomous societies have to rely on the larger economy?
    2) have you ever considered how these larger and more modern economic systems gained so much wealth?
  • Sep 25 2012: Sorry Mr. Feyisayo Anjorin
    but it is money. Humans are not by nature all the negatives you so easily and readily attribute to them. It almost sounds to me as though you have a very high disregard for your fellow man. If that is so, then you only have an extremely limited opening in which to find common ground, understanding, community and relationship with, other humans. IMO

    Please list seven needs that humans have that would be the same for everyone.
    Let me list seven needs of any and all monetary systems:
    greed, crime, inequality, poverty, slavery, war and death. Without those, monetary systems die.
    Do those match the seven you came up with?
    I hope not. You also stated, "If the human is right, the world will be right. But if human beings are evil; even brilliant and laudable systems would fail." I have news for you:
    Humans already are right!! It is the system, or systems, the monetary system that is wrong. It is unjust and cannot be made just. You cannot fix it, as many discuss doing and have discussed for over 2000 years. Or, as long as it has been failing...... failing who? humans. You, it seems, want only to blame humans.

    It has to be eliminated and a new, better, inclusive, humane, kind, loving and for-all, system built in its place.

    The world still won't recognize and practice human rights for all, everywhere.
    In fact, we all have the same needs, yet we cannot or will not make human needs into human rights.
    Because we can't afford to!! Because our systems are unjust.

    When human needs are met, humans do not act and behave as you say they do. They are loving, kind, helpful, supportive, understanding. In short, unafraid of the world, one another or of themselves.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, costs money. It costs people. Their time, love, care, nurture, knowledge, training, education, skills, abilities, experience, willingness, compassion and their connection that all are good and deserving because they are, they exist, they are not by nature bad.
  • Sep 25 2012: we could because nowadays money is just circulating debt its no longer a means of exchange, I think that we will move past the need for money because as technology creates more abundance and at the same time takes away the purchasing power of the average worker and even higher skilled worker like doctors lawyers there will be a radical shift in our society
    It wont be pretty though if this happens
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2012: Can we:
    Yes (throughout the vicissitudes of human history, there were many societies that functioned without money or some sort of centralized power).

    Will we:
    In the more modernized areas of the world: No and it wouldn't be practical because the concern is power and in spite of the injustice that comes about by a concern for monetary gain and its relation to power, this is unlikely to change because most people would prefer stability and longevity over modification.
    • thumb
      Sep 24 2012: "there were many societies that functioned without money"

      which ones?
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2012: Ahhh, Mr. Pinter, long time no talk to...2 or 3 months away from this site only to have a warm welcoming from you....

        if you really want find the answer Google stateless societies (btw this does not only apply to anarchism..there are many stateless societies that did function without a centralized monetary system as well as centralized power structure that were not anarchistic in nature)...I'm not saying all societies (or all primitive societies) functioned in this way. I only bring it up to show that humans have the capacity to live without money by providing empirical proof as opposed to idealism.

        I'm not trying to be Crass but I do not have the time to compose a list of these societies...I'd recommend a read of Murray Bookchin's "Ecology of Freedom" in which he talks about organic societies that flourished until the industrial age or just look at SOME native tribes..
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2012: state and money are not connected. money naturally emerge in every society after the division of labor reaches a certain (very low) level. the only money-less societies are those that refuse to use money on principle. but these societies rely on a surrounding functioning economy to maintain any level of wealth. or they have to go back to stone age level.
      • Sep 25 2012: Also ancient Egypt during the old kingdom period, though of course they had barter and most people grew their own food.

        @Krisztian Pinter

        What is your definition of money? Would you consider ration stamps handed out by a communist government to be money? I'm curious because it seems to me you're alluding to rationing being necessary in a society that has division of labor (which is true), but many people would not agree that rationing automatically implies money.
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2012: "and most people grew their own food."

          that is what i'm talking about actually. the only society that can do well with no money is a society with practically zero division of labor.
  • Sep 24 2012: Hello All

    What is Money? Where does it come from? who invented in and why? ( I don't know )
    you can find the answers on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money

    Imagine there is no money - how each one of us going to feed our family and pay our bills? We can't imagine it , because we born and money was there. so we got used to this life-with-money. I strongly believe that every single person on our planet who got to know what the money is from the early age also got to know that it is something that he/she will need in order to be able to live on in this abusive consumers’ society.

    before humans are allowed to hunt and feed their families, all was "free" but during the human evolution we invented trading . we traded goods with goods, but seemed to be (un)fair in many cases, none of us knew how to value our goods. Many was invented to give value to the goods. Money became a unite of exchange. (although old times it was gold and silver coins)

    I believe in today's world for many people Money is a Tool: Strangely enough it is a tool in many people's hand.
    My answer is: “It’s a simple tool as many others we have at home in store room”
    Well, I think I might be a very strange person to compare money with a tool and give such answer... but trust me, it is so, or I am strange or the money is a tool. You have right to think what you want. Let me go through a few examples to shed light over my complicated answer:

    1: A builder has got a hammer; if he won’t use his hammer then it is a useless tool in his store room. Yet that hammer would occupy space, even worse, a useless hammer would get on his way.
    2: A musician had got its musical instrument (you name it whatever you want) if a musician doesn’t play/use its instrument then it is a useless instrument.

    So if none of them uses his tool, how possibly can they earn their living? I believe, as you believe now too, they can’t earn any living at all, because we don't live in caves and on hunting.

    TOO LATE TO CHANGE!
  • Sep 24 2012: The problem is not the money; the problem is the slavish dedication to the acquisition of money. Some people are just simply inconsiderate, greedy, selfish and materialistic.
    Even if money doesn't exist, these human failings would manifest in other ways. That is why humanity should focus on ethics and moral issues.

    If the human is right, the world will be right. But if human beings are evil; even brilliant and laudable systems would fail.
    • thumb
      Sep 24 2012: I don't agree that humans are naturally greedy, inconsiderate, or selfish. I think this is constructed by society.
      • Sep 24 2012: Human beings are not perfect. We have choices between doing the right thing and doing otherwise; and sometimes our choices are harmful to others.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2012: I agree with your thoughts indicating the social contruct theory,Henry,however I think that there is a level of greed that is necessary for material success.@ Feyisayo, the problem is indeed is money! and social system, as in institutions; money has become a crucial test of human character and no longer an independent lagal tender in social exchange in many socities.
  • Sep 24 2012: If money were, as originally intended, simply a symbol representing the value of a product or service, then it is a convenient method of trading. Money as a commodity in itself, as it has become, we would certainly do well to abolish.
  • Sep 24 2012: If you (like me) don't consider non-transferable energy credits to be money, then the answer is yes: money can be done away with. If you think any method of currency is money then the answer is no: you need money for rationing purposes.
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2012: The Zeitgeist movement's founders say that if people volunteered 3% of our time, all basic human services (water/sewer systems, energy systems, food systems,educational, etc.) can be met, leaving the rest of our time to contribute what we love to do and are good at to the service of human kind. I have no idea how they researched and validated their conclusions.

    ALL of our social ills are the result of a corrupt economic system, and there is much evidence to support THAT
    • thumb
      Sep 24 2012: 3% of time is 40 minutes per day, assuming the 100% contains sleep too. i wonder what kind of calculation is behind that silly number.
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2012: If there is no need to make more money, then it is logical to assume the things we need will become higher quality and more durable. We won’t need to save money on creating with cheaper materials, and because they last they will rarely need replacing.
    If we don’t need to sell cheaper products because they don’t last then how many more humans will be out of employment?
    How many more working hours would there be available for other more productive tasks in society?


    By doing this eventually we will be wasting less so there will be more material available for creation. If there is less waste in the world, how many more humans will be out of employment?
    How many more working hours would there be available for other more productive tasks in society?


    If there is no money and the things you need can be created it is logical to assume that less crimes will be committed. In light of this how much less authority would we need?
    How many more working hours would there be available for other more productive tasks in society?