TED Conversations

Maxime Touzel

This conversation is closed.

An Economy based on Love, Compassion and Sharing, where wealth is generated from benevolent acts. With the goal of reaching global peace.

Beauty, Harmony and Balance. This economical system is the answer for the worlds current problems and future problems. It is a self sustained economy, with no need to grow too fast, it's a system where people benefit from the actions of everyone else.

When a group is bringing humanitarian aid in a 3rd world country, their funds are multiplying so they can improve the help and the opposite is also happening when a group is taking lives away, their funds are reduced and their debts are appearing, forcing them to bring humanitarian help and/or be imprisoned.

The funding are based on the results of the quality of life, the cheaper their products or services are, the more funds they receive, until the whole of humanity is living in the best possible quality of life standards.

A system like this implemented today would first make sure no food or consumable goods are dumped by companies in order to have them gaining profit, this system could be qualify as a state-society that has a central bank and a justice authority over all corporations even military, taxing the pollution and other criminal results, bankrupting military industries, and rewarding humanitarian aid.

The state-society would 1st be a justice-banking corporation with quality of life as a basic value measure with the goal of increasing this value as much as possible, when a corporation or an industry is being forcefully bankrupted it is also absorbed by the state-society and evaluated in order to keep some industry going and not some others, all this in order to attain a global harmony between the different cultures and people of the planet.

Ultimately reaching a point where everything is produced automatically and distributed equally to everyone, where AI is omnipresent and almost completely managing the system by itself without the need of having mechanics and other maintenance workers.

But 1st this system has to be built by the best achievement of global cooperation in order to attain this objective.

Share:
  • thumb
    May 13 2011: Greed would still cause great distress, if someone gets a great economic reward for a good deed some may chose to create a situation that needs fixed
    • May 13 2011: Kind of "Cloward-Piven" esqe, eh?
    • thumb
      May 14 2011: Isn`t what you describes already happening everyday for private corporation interests ?

      What do you think will they do once robotic and AI get perfected and corporations start to lay off everyone, because that`s what`s next.

      Did you know we can grow oil from Co2 emissions ? Not much per metric ton, but if it would be used everywhere we have a factory that produces Co2 emissions, we would have more than enough and production would be stable, no more need for fossil fuel, we`d be generating it right by industries.

      The biggest obstacle for this idea to become reality is the current fear that people have and this fear has been well cultivated by the same corporations who must be gone.

      Anyway if someone is creating a situation where humanitarian aid is required after, it cannot be from a benevolent deed, therefore instead of rewarding this person or group, the governement will have to judge this action as being malevolent, similar to any criminal, but the debt to be paid would be aquired and the malevolent person or group would be imprisoned. But the generation of wealth would still happen, the governement would allow itself to used newly made funds especially to help this new crisis. But the creation of crisis would be highly condemn, maybe prison for life or something similar or equivalent.

      The current capitalist system is dependant of it`s own exponential growing, it is not conceived to slow down and stabilize, because if it stabilize it goes bankrupt because of the continuous need to pay debt interests back even if this amount of money doesn`t exist in the system, which force the people to work, but the planet is not exponentially growing, the current system is absolutely not conceived for the reality of tomorrow.

      500 years ago, nobody thought about the possibility that we would self destroy our environment like we do today, still today nobody seems to really care, only a few do care, the resources are limited, yet the economy is not thinking that way.
  • May 13 2011: So you want an authoritarian society with virtually no economic freedom?...

    The guidelines as to what is "good" and compassionate as opposed to what is "bad" and "harmful" is bound to be highly subjective too. A system based off of subjectivity and a severe lack of economic freedom can be a dangerous combination.

    I'm not trying to be overly-critical here. I know this is an idea based off of good intentions, it just needs refinement (as does most every invention and idea).
    • thumb
      May 13 2011: Yea i agree but you know 2000 characters is a short limit for describing details on every aspects. You can ask questions though. The system has to protect people from others, the current system too have laws.

      Too much imbalance in the economy is causing what we currently have, stores selling food are dumping good products everyday, while many people inside 3 miles radius are starving. There are flaws in the current system.

      What really is the current economic freedom ? Who really have freedom and how many are they ? Who really have NO freedom and how many are they ?

      What do you consider being a good equality guidelines as to being required to be good enough ?

      This idea needs refinement of course but it needs to also be realistic, if owning 40 sports car is your definition of being good enough, than maybe if you work developping those cars you will be granted the right to own many, if owning 5 palaces in different countries is your definition of good enough than i`m afraid this would not be possible as it isn`t realist to live simultaneously in 5 different place altogether, no in that case you might be granted the right to have vacations in different palaces, or a modest wood cabin on the shore of a lake if you wish to live out of society for a while.

      Why would someone own hundreds of different clothes when some don`t even have 10 ? I`m pretty sure it is faster to produce a full wardrobe than it is to produce a human being, yet some people lives almost naked or wear rags all their lives.

      In my opinion, some balance must be made, even if it displease some rich people. No one would lose their right, they would simply have to learn the definition of justice, are we civilized or not, justice(law) is what make us different from animals, yet our society looks more like the law of the jungle than a civilization.

      I'm sad for those not aggreeing to this fact, for they are the danger.
      But justice is never subjective, it has to be objective to be real justice.