The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

First of all, thank you for your post, very well written and informative.

Woah... I've been linked. I think that means I need to update, revise, and add to my stuff so far. I guess I need to get back to my essaying and researching again (I've mostly been tied up with the elections and with my normal personal studies).

Here Im lost, linked?

Bodhi (can I just call you Bodhi, or do you prefer BDZ, or is your full name preferable?): I can understand what you say regarding one who is 'skeptic', but where you and I may disagree is on the terms and usage of the word in reference to this conversation. What the people here who are using the term 'skeptic' as a pronoun are doing is talking about someone who is far more than simply skeptical, but is also ardent in examining as much as they possibly can with as much critical thinking as they are capable.

Bodhi or BDZ is ok, thanks I think we agree then, my question is, why employing this skills only towards the "supernatural" or movements like "zeitgeist" and not to the model in vogue regarding human politics and economics? People (and this is my impression at least) is so deep inside their culture that it is VERY difficult for them to see it in a critical way, we live in a world that uses money and nobody questions it. Still people in here question other common beliefs like "ghosts" or "souls". For instance, we can question what is a "property" (key concept for economics) with the same impetus, but I don't see this happens very often.

I would like it noted (by you), however, that I'm not one of the people who use the term 'skeptic' like that. I recognize it because it's useful to have honest discourse here, but my own opinions on the usage differ slightly from many here on that. Still, I'd strongly suggest you keep open to the idea of context, because it will help you to understand what people mean when they use the linguistic shortcut of 'skeptic' in their posts.

Point noticed. Thanks.

Open Source has been successful specifically because it is profitable, and even traditionally closed source companies (like Microsoft) have recognized this and offer their own contributions to Open Source (while retaining their flagship closed source products).

Yes of course, but my intention was to demonstrate that people in fact do a lot of hard work without actually being paid for doing it. For instance, I make webportals and know several "hard core" programmers that would love to being paid for much of the stuff they do, but they are still happy and highly motivated to DO IT ANYWAY because their job is also their passion.

They often write and re-write enormous pieces of code that people will enjoy and nobody will pay (some of them actively participate in the GNOME project for Linux to put a concrete example).

But more to the meat of your question on the matter: it isn't that every human action is determined by profit, it's that (on the whole) most human actions are determined by benefit.

Absolutely, and this is what I mean when I say that we should organize societies based on what we know about human nature. Now, what you say about "benefit" and that its particular meaning will vary among humans is very true. Still, must people simply learn from their surroundings (their culture) what constitutes a benefit, and of course we can point to countless examples in this society about people expressing that their motivation and their benefits lie not in money, but in satisfaction, in being noticed (like many programmers for example), being recognized, being applauded and a long etc.

To put myself as an example, I would continue to do exactly what I do in a world without money, because I simply love to create things, to solve problems, to develop, to improve others lives.

What you're seeing in the skepticism behind most of these posts is the cautious disapproval based on where and how similar propositions have gone wrong in the past. It isn't that most here wouldn't think a world where science and discovery were the most prominent factors could be great, it's that most people here look to attempts to create such a world with caution and a bit of suspicion, and for very good reason-- there is a lot of historical basis for such skepticism.

I understand, still, past failures do not imply future failures. Societies change all the time. We have evolved form societies in which individuals had unlimited power for unlimited time to this one in which more individuals have a lot less power and can be "in charge" just for a limited period of time. Someday the way current society is organized will be seen as strange as the middle ages, this is inevitable.

So, rather than propose that those here who are critical or skeptical of the Zeitgeist plan are simply being closed-minded or critical because it's not "mainstream" enough, I urge you to consider the possibility that their reasons might be every bit as broad, realistic, and valid as the reasons that those who came up with the Zeitgeist plan used in their own proposition.

Well, that is not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I have said that I only used the ZM as an example of people working towards a different society. I also mentioned that I'm curious about why people in the forum is prone to attack the views of religious people but not the actual reality they live inmerse in. Thats all.

 

[GreNME]

First of all, thank you for your post, very well written and informative.

Here Im lost, linked?

Well, paximperium gave two links to a site of mine ( http://ct.grenme.com ) that I'd worked on for some time, but has lately seen little revision due to more pressing things taking up my time. It was a reminder to me that I should get back to working on it when I have time. I have another page on that site covering the history of the Federal Reserve that also needs some additions and more information, which you may also find helpful when examining critically some of the things used to argue the point in Zeitgeist.

Bodhi or BDZ is ok, thanks I think we agree then, my question is, why employing this skills only towards the "supernatural" or movements like "zeitgeist" and not to the model in vogue regarding human politics and economics? People (and this is my impression at least) is so deep inside their culture that it is VERY difficult for them to see it in a critical way, we live in a world that uses money and nobody questions it. Still people in here question other common beliefs like "ghosts" or "souls". For instance, we can question what is a "property" (key concept for economics) with the same impetus, but I don't see this happens very often.

Well, I think the simple answer to your question is that people aren't robots, aren't Vulcans (from Star Trek), and aren't prone to agreeing for very long. Historically, that's been a very important factor behind how civilization has developed in our (relatively) brief time on the planet.

Yes of course, but my intention was to demonstrate that people in fact do a lot of hard work without actually being paid for doing it. For instance, I make webportals and know several "hard core" programmers that would love to being paid for much of the stuff they do, but they are still happy and highly motivated to DO IT ANYWAY because their job is also their passion.

They often write and re-write enormous pieces of code that people will enjoy and nobody will pay (some of them actively participate in the GNOME project for Linux to put a concrete example).

Don't mistake a hobby for work-- most of the prodigious contributors to open source do in fact get paid. I've contributed to OSS projects myself, but the best OSS contributors I've known-- one of them a professor of mine years ago who also worked for IBM-- definitely make a living for their efforts. The difference between their financial benefit from OSS compared to their financial benefit from closed source is what and why they get compensated. This is the difference between support- or service-based versus product-based.

Absolutely, and this is what I mean when I say that we should organize societies based on what we know about human nature. Now, what you say about "benefit" and that its particular meaning will vary among humans is very true. Still, must people simply learn from their surroundings (their culture) what constitutes a benefit, and of course we can point to countless examples in this society about people expressing that their motivation and their benefits lie not in money, but in satisfaction, in being noticed (like many programmers for example), being recognized, being applauded and a long etc.

To put myself as an example, I would continue to do exactly what I do in a world without money, because I simply love to create things, to solve problems, to develop, to improve others lives.

Your example displays what I'm talking about precisely-- I'm very different from you. I'm also involved in the IT field, though not as a programmer-- I'm not a very talented programmer, I'm more of a hacker-of-code when needed, and very sloppy-- but while I plan on doing the best I can in my work it isn't because I love it. I do what I do because it affords me the opportunity to do the things I really do love, and because it contributes to other people being able to afford to do the things they love. My reward is that I'm productive, and an added benefit is that my productive work allows others to be productive, for which I'm compensated. If I didn't ever have to worry about money ever again I'd be out of my field so fast your head would spin. I don't do it for the money, though: I do it because I like food, a home, and the ability to take care of my dogs (one of my loves).

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the kind of society discussed in 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' is one where those basics would be provided for me, but the equation breaks down with one of the ideas I learned from reading Robert Heinlein: TANSTAAFL-- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The movie, while talking about the state it defines the world now and the desired goal, covers very little of the actual logistics and difficult realities involved in getting there. To me, that's no different from religion, because the stopper to all grand ideas that never were have been in the logistical details. Things that may be proposed in getting to that grand goal may seem beneficial to you but very much may seem detrimental to me. That doesn't make either of us inherently wrong right off the bat, but I'll quote Sam Clemens (another writer) in that "your ability to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." I'm not talking about actually swinging any fists, but what might seem like an obvious benefit to you isn't a benefit to me if I feel it's detrimental. What do you propose when that happens? Does that mean one of us is "good" and the other "evil," like the moral absolutism in the Zeitgeist films promotes? I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are as able to recognize obvious shades of gray as much as you would things you find beneficial.

The conundrum I'd put to you is: what would society do when (not if) people begin disagreeing on what the greatest good is?

I understand, still, past failures do not imply future failures. Societies change all the time. We have evolved form societies in which individuals had unlimited power for unlimited time to this one in which more individuals have a lot less power and can be "in charge" just for a limited period of time. Someday the way current society is organized will be seen as strange as the middle ages, this is inevitable.

As someone who studies history I have to say I find your assessment of human society way off the mark. We haven't changed much at all in the brief span we've had on the planet. I will agree that the balances of power have continually been shifting over the millennia, but if we want to look at the trend that way then I'd say we're already moving in the right direction in the first place. Also, considering human nature is very much a part of this equation, I'd say that past failures very much are warnings toward future endeavors about how things go wrong. Looked at using historical trends, I'd say we're on the right path already and changing for the sake of change is not a compelling enough proposition to convince me.

So, rather than propose that those here who are critical or skeptical of the Zeitgeist plan are simply being closed-minded or critical because it's not "mainstream" enough, I urge you to consider the possibility that their reasons might be every bit as broad, realistic, and valid as the reasons that those who came up with the Zeitgeist plan used in their own proposition.

Well, that is not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I have said that I only used the ZM as an example of people working towards a different society. I also mentioned that I'm curious about why people in the forum is prone to attack the views of religious people but not the actual reality they live inmerse in. Thats all.

I don't think you're saying that (what you quoted of me) exactly, but a lot of what you've posted has implied it, whether intentional or not. As I said, different isn't better simply because it's different-- there needs to be fundamentally sound reasoning behind it, and the Zeitgeist films lack those fundamentals in key areas. Additionally, not everyone on this forum is prone to attack religion-- I'm pretty adamantly agnostic about religion, though I am a stickler on facts-- and those views do not necessitate the need for anyone to think that the world is fundamentally flawed in such a way that current movements that they may be in favor of (which may be inherently different from those proposed in Zeitgeist) aren't worth keeping their energy focused on.

 

[Neally]

The utopia depicted in the Venus Project is an unrealistic, unworkable concept just as all other Utopian societies have been. No work, no money, no crime, won't happen. It may seem pleasant to fantasize about such a place, but the VP has no realistic plan to get from here to there. Additionally, it runs counter to human nature.

but what about a society that has been engineered using all we know about our human nature instead of (ignorant) political ideologies?

What we know is that humans have positive and negative emotions. Even if everything is free, there will be crime. The idea that we just push a button and the machines will do everything, including building and maintaining the other machines is science fiction. Every organization includes a political element simply because humans have the emotions of pride, greed, power, etc. The idea that somehow you will build a society free from politics is silly, since you are ignoring basic human nature and emotions.

 

[Francesca R]

I see now. Well, maybe sort like, but I would bet on a system that encompasses everything we have learn about human nature using zoology, biology, psychology, neuroscience, etc rather than just "ideals".

Eh? But it does. What, in the capital stock of knowledge, is screened out from policy decisions? I suspect you are not differentiating between ideas (philosophy) and knowledge (intellectual "goods"). However--much discussion about that is beyond my, erm, core competency

Yes of course, and I'm willing to argue that the best incentives are related to gaining recognition, respect and love

OK, please do so. In particular, explain why those are incentives (to a sceptical audience).

not money

The usefulness of considering money is that the other benefits you mention (assuming they are benefits, which we can) may be measured in money too--which is handy in this sub-forum. People recoil from such a suggestion but they themselves do it. So money, love, respect, recognition are all "benefits" and are all (in economics parlance) "commodities" that have relative worth to individuals and which can be substituted for each other in proportions dictaed by "indifference curves".

I work all day and just some of my work is money oriented. I simply love to do things.

We can come back to this . . .

 

[Francesca R]

we live in a world that uses money and nobody questions it. Still people in here question other common beliefs like "ghosts" or "souls". For instance, we can question what is a "property" (key concept for economics) with the same impetus, but I don't see this happens very often.

Money is a way to transact and transfer what you call benefit. Not all of it (it is less easy to buy and sell love, respect and recognition, but people do). Property is a claim on benefit. Since you have not dismissed the concept of benefit and incentive, dismissing money or property makes little difference to how (whatever society you imagine) would behave--just how easy it would find it to do so.

I say that we should organize societies based on what we know about human nature.

I say we already do.

Now, what you say about "benefit" and that its particular meaning will vary among humans is very true. Still, must people simply learn from their surroundings (their culture) what constitutes a benefit, and of course we can point to countless examples in this society about people expressing that their motivation and their benefits lie not in money, but in satisfaction, in being noticed (like many programmers for example), being recognized, being applauded and a long etc.

But society recognises satisfaction, applause and recognition in numerous codified ways, and most importantly--actually--via the market price system. That's why an author gets more satisfaction/recognition if her work tops a best-seller list. If it was not for the price mechanism of discovering and measuring and responding to individual choice, this author would be none the wiser that so many people read her book.

To put myself as an example, I would continue to do exactly what I do in a world without money, because I simply love to create things, to solve problems, to develop, to improve others lives.

Actually no you would not. You would not be able to delegate the effort of you subsisting to anybody else, unless you happened to stumble on some individuals who "simply love to feed, clothe and otherwise sustain Bodhi Dharma Zen in return for receiving the benefits of what BDZ loves doing", which is perhaps unlikely. Rather, you would have to abandon what you like doing--or else severely curtail it--to attend to survival. Conversely if you earn income you will find it easy to locate individuals who will voluntarily do stuff for you in exchange for money compensation. This is why a transferable commoditised medium of exchange is helpful (or--essential).

 

[dudalb]

I have a theory that those who talk about a "society without money" are really talking about a "society where I don't have to work for a living".

 

[GreNME]

I have a theory that those who talk about a "society without money" are really talking about a "society where I don't have to work for a living".

I'd rather not have to work for a living. One of my goals in life is to get to a point where I can quit working for a living. As long as you can live modestly, the bar is even pretty low to get to that point. It's just a matter of working to get there as opposed to just wishing for it, I suppose.

 

[Francesca R]

I'd rather not have to work for a living. One of my goals in life is to get to a point where I can quit working for a living. As long as you can live modestly, the bar is even pretty low to get to that point. It's just a matter of working to get there as opposed to just wishing for it, I suppose.

Wherever the bar is, relatively few people can do it with current technology because you will need to earn a capital sum big enough to provide enough income to support yourself from then onwards (unless others donate theirs or their labour). And as soon as you stop working, the ratio of capital formation to consumption in the whole economy shrinks just a tiny bit, and the more people that do that, the lower the return on capital should go, making it harder to generate the same income as before with any capital sum.

So you need to outcompete the majority and get there early. Which is fine, but what does that have to do with a money-less society?

 

[GreNME]

Wherever the bar is, relatively few people can do it with current technology because you will need to earn a capital sum big enough to provide enough income to support yourself from then onwards (unless others donate theirs or their labour). And as soon as you stop working, the ratio of capital formation to consumption in the whole economy shrinks just a tiny bit, and the more people that do that, the lower the return on capital should go, making it harder to generate the same income as before with any capital sum.

Keep in mind I said as long as you're willing to live modestly. I could do it with as little as 250k-500k, as long as I made sure to not live above the means I establish. Granted, my goal is a bit higher than that (I'm thinking 750k to 1m), but the methodology would remain the same. Also, to be perfectly honest, it wouldn't mean no work from me, it's simply that my chores would be focused on keeping the wealth I have in places that will nominally grow.

Disclaimer: that kind of lifestyle is not a societal model, but a personal one. I take no responsibility for anyone who tries to make it a societal one.

So you need to outcompete the majority and get there early. Which is fine, but what does that have to do with a money-less society?

Absolutely nothing! That's the beauty of it!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, paximperium gave two links to a site of mine ( http://ct.grenme.com ) that I'd worked on for some time, but has lately seen little revision due to more pressing things taking up my time. It was a reminder to me that I should get back to working on it when I have time. I have another page on that site covering the history of the Federal Reserve that also needs some additions and more information, which you may also find helpful when examining critically some of the things used to argue the point in Zeitgeist.

Ah you wrote those links, now I got it . And thanks for the one about the Federal Reserve, I just read it. I do want to tell you something. Maybe others will care about this detailed account on why their video is historically "accurate" or not, because speaking for myself, I believe the important thing is to change the point of view of the viewers, this is, to push them to think about what they have blindly accepted, without even noticing that they were accepting it.

Don't mistake a hobby for work-- most of the prodigious contributors to open source do in fact get paid. I've contributed to OSS projects myself, but the best OSS contributors I've known-- one of them a professor of mine years ago who also worked for IBM-- definitely make a living for their efforts.

I'm not claiming that nobody gets paid, just stating that most people gets nothing but the satisfaction, being recognized or the acceptance in a group they value. They work REALLY hard and they do not receive a single penny for it.. so it is not something that "might happen in an utopia" it happens every day in our current society, people working hard and not getting a dime for their work.

The difference between their financial benefit from OSS compared to their financial benefit from closed source is what and why they get compensated. This is the difference between support- or service-based versus product-based.

Still, and I'm sure you should be aware of this, there are countless of "little" contributors that make nothing out of it. Nothing at all (monetarily speaking of course).

Your example displays what I'm talking about precisely-- I'm very different from you... I do what I do because it affords me the opportunity to do the things I really do love, and because it contributes to other people being able to afford to do the things they love... If I didn't ever have to worry about money ever again I'd be out of my field so fast your head would spin.

I see, and yes, I believe a large percentage of population do things they don't REALLY like just because they get money to do the things they like. Problem with this system is, and excuse me I do not want this to sound bad, most people are slaves in the system. They can't afford to not to what they do ergo, they are "invisible forced" to do what they do. This happens, in a way, because of what the video of Zeitgeist says; we born in a society of debt. You don't have anything, you own everything you want, and have to pay back in order to get it. To make it worst, this society tell us constantly that we need "this or that" in order to BE someone, in order to be respected, in order to be loved, in order to be adequate.

But think about this, some of the richier people in the world LOVE to do what they do, they are compelled to do it but not because external forces, in fact they simply can't stop doing it, they NEED to do it. Thankfully, for them, the world is organized in a way they can shine. But other societies have privileged other kind of personalities, like warriors to put an example, and most of them have no way of shining in current society, some of them might be exceptional football players, but I believe must of them are simply in jail.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the kind of society discussed in 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' is one where those basics would be provided for me, but the equation breaks down with one of the ideas I learned from reading Robert Heinlein: TANSTAAFL-- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Why? Who says this? Is it a natural law? No. I believe this is a byproduct of the current way to organize a society. You don't have to buy air to breath, you don't have to pay anyone to see light, you don't need to pay someone else to digest your food. "Free" is a concept, as it is "Work". In my case, I simply love to do what I do, and a side effect is that I get paid by doing it. But as I said before I would continue to do it in a different society.

Suppose (just suppose we are not dealing here on the how) that you born in a society where four things are guaranteed. 1) You have a place to live, 2) all the food you need is given, 3) education is given, 4) health services are given. You don't have to "earn them", they are there because you are alive and they are your right.

In this conditions (remember we are dealing with a thought experiment not with anything else) people will not have the concept about "TANSTAAFL". Let's talk about the distant past, in the earlier times of humanity there were not concept of "work", you either went to hunt or get hunted. You either had a place to sleep in peace or you were in danger. What was free and what was paid by them? Nothing, different approaches to life and different concepts.

The movie, while talking about the state it defines the world now and the desired goal, covers very little of the actual logistics and difficult realities involved in getting there.

Now here is the real problem about them and I reckon that. Yes, one thing is to imagine the Utopia and another, very different, is to actually solve the logistics and mechanics involved. I don't know if they have a clue or just wishful thinking about it.

... but what might seem like an obvious benefit to you isn't a benefit to me if I feel it's detrimental. What do you propose when that happens? Does that mean one of us is "good" and the other "evil," like the moral absolutism in the Zeitgeist films promotes? I'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are as able to recognize obvious shades of gray as much as you would things you find beneficial.

Yes of course. One possible way to fix this is to create a first city whos individuals would have to be carefully (and naturally) selected. Not that this would have to be about absolutism, this happens in our society too, thats why we still make our small tribes inside our big cities (Desmond Morris, The Human Zoo). Only people with the same goals would naturally want to live there.

The conundrum I'd put to you is: what would society do when (not if) people begin disagreeing on what the greatest good is?

Exactly the same as what happens in here. I don't see how or why this is a problem just for them (or anybody proposing a different way to organize a society).

As someone who studies history I have to say I find your assessment of human society way off the mark. We haven't changed much at all in the brief span we've had on the planet. I will agree that the balances of power have continually been shifting over the millennia, but if we want to look at the trend that way then I'd say we're already moving in the right direction in the first place.

Indeed. In fact, maybe we are not disagreeing here, and this is merely a problem of semantics

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The utopia depicted in the Venus Project is an unrealistic, unworkable concept just as all other Utopian societies have been. No work, no money, no crime, won't happen. It may seem pleasant to fantasize about such a place, but the VP has no realistic plan to get from here to there. Additionally, it runs counter to human nature.

Yes, the plan is the problem, but jumping from their (possible) lack of concrete steps or even a methodology to claim it is "unrealistic" seems unfair. Say you can go back in time and tell the people of Middle Ages that, in the future, the church would not have infinite power, that people would be able to choose their governors, and for crying out loud that it will be possible for anyone to talk to others that are far away in an instant way and they could turn their heads looking for the inquisitor to burn you.

What we know is that humans have positive and negative emotions. Even if everything is free, there will be crime. The idea that we just push a button and the machines will do everything, including building and maintaining the other machines is science fiction. Every organization includes a political element simply because humans have the emotions of pride, greed, power, etc. The idea that somehow you will build a society free from politics is silly, since you are ignoring basic human nature and emotions.

First "positive and negative emotions" in relation to what? Pleas tell me if I understand here something different to what you are actually saying, but are you implicitly claiming that there is "good" and "bad"? And if this is the case, are you willing to accept that those concepts have an inherent existence on their own? That they are objective and have a clear ontological existence beyond our ideas?

Yes, there will be people who will commit murders, or will damage others and this society have to invent a way to dealing with them. But think about it, in a society based on science and technology instead of religion an political ideologies, I would bet that we would have a better way to deal with problematic people than judging them and then sending them to jails. The nature of what impulses them to damage others still needs to be fully understood, then, probably with new drugs a la Prozac, this people can live peacefully in such a society.

And think about this, a large amount of current crimes are about the inadequacy of current society to give enough value to their citizens. It is implied that if you drive a 80s Ford instead of a Porsche Boxter you are "a looser" (to put just an example out of millions). Imagine the accumulated frustration of somebody living in a ghetto, dealing in a daily basis with aggressive and angry people, and being pressured by this ads that make him feel trash.. some of these have (naturally) to become drug dealers in order to at least try to be somebody, to be admired, to be "better than the rest" and so on... these kind of problems would be solved in a different society.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To put this in context, I said that "I'm willing to argue that the best incentives are related to gaining recognition, respect and love"

OK, please do so. In particular, explain why those are incentives (to a sceptical audience).

Do I really need to argue about the point? I honestly think it is clear to anyone that a new car, a new cellphone, a new wristwatch are not "necessary". The (implicit) reason (some) people buy them is because they give them a sense of being "superior to my coworkers", "better than my neighborhood". A wonderful quote comes handy:

“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned, to buy things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like.” — Will Rogers.

I do believe that it is clear that money, per se, its obviously useless. You use it to impress others, or to comfort you. But the things you really want are the smiles of your loved ones, or the envy of those who you don't like. You want emotions, you want to create emotions on others. You want to cry (for being exposed to something beautiful), you want to shout (going to the Superbowl), you want to feel alive (going in your bike). And note that I'm not including here food, or health services, or even education, because I feel a well organized society should provide them in the same way it provides public light or pavement. "Yes", you might say, "but in this society taxes pay those things"... And my reply: How many people uses them, arguagably for free, without paying a dime on taxes? Without having to work to use them?

O BTW and aside the discussion in progress, I saw your pics on Flickr and believe you are really cute. Now, lets continue to debate

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Money is a way to transact and transfer what you call benefit. Not all of it (it is less easy to buy and sell love, respect and recognition, but people do). Property is a claim on benefit. Since you have not dismissed the concept of benefit and incentive, dismissing money or property makes little difference to how (whatever society you imagine) would behave--just how easy it would find it to do so.

Yes, "property" is, in a way, a claim of benefit. But lets think for a moment in another possible definition: "use". People use the bus to go to schools, but they do not "own them", they are not "their property". Same goes for all public services, people uses the pavement yet nobody claims to "own" it. The water flows in our houses, we use it, but it would be weird if someone tells you that you can use "their" water, claiming property over it because it is in their houses.

Now, regarding "personal benefit" yes, arguably that is what really moves us, even those who are considered to be less selfish simply find satisfaction in giving (to put an example). But I find it weird when people simply asumes that "personal gain" or "personal benefit" are, somehow, synonymous of getting money out of an activity. Yes, they are related in the way things are now, but that's about it.

But society recognises satisfaction, applause and recognition in numerous codified ways, and most importantly--actually--via the market price system. That's why an author gets more satisfaction/recognition if her work tops a best-seller list. If it was not for the price mechanism of discovering and measuring and responding to individual choice, this author would be none the wiser that so many people read her book.

Yes, but you should reckon that it is a flawed system. Very flawed. I would say almost in a risible way. Some authors have best sellers because of the marketing behind them, not because the inherent merit of their works. And lets not enter in to who deserves more, someone who invents a vaccine that will help millions or someone who scores a goal in a football game.

Musicians make music, often they make it because they NEED to make it, yes, some musicians get paid, but how many do not? Now, take a musician and create something like the RIAA, then the marketing efforts are towards selling a "product", not "just the music", but the image, the clothes, the "god like" qualities of rock stars. Then you get a system in which a musician (the only one who really deserved it in the first place) get cents for every CD they sell, while the RIAA and others get more than 90% of the profits... For me this is insane, I frankly do not understand how much absurdity is taken as "nature given" or simply for granted by most people.

Actually no you would not. You would not be able to delegate the effort of you subsisting to anybody else, unless you happened to stumble on some individuals who "simply love to feed, clothe and otherwise sustain Bodhi Dharma Zen in return for receiving the benefits of what BDZ loves doing", which is perhaps unlikely. Rather, you would have to abandon what you like doing--or else severely curtail it--to attend to survival. Conversely if you earn income you will find it easy to locate individuals who will voluntarily do stuff for you in exchange for money compensation. This is why a transferable commoditised medium of exchange is helpful (or--essential).

MM sorry but this is an insubstantial claim. Actually I have several incomes, and I love everyone of them. I have been working hard in NOT TO FALL in to the "traps" of current society, like creating employees. I'm not and will ever be the employee of anyone. I have my own ideas, my own goals, my own way to see the world and if someone shares it he/she is welcome to join my efforts, but I will not work to make others rich while I get pennies.

For instance, one of my passions is photography, and I get paid (sometimes well paid) because people loves what I do. And I would still take pictures in a world without money. Why? because I love to capture "instants of light". Nothing more is needed, I love to do it because it makes me feel good, it is a rewarding activity, period.

Sure, there are lots of works that are not as pleasurable as taking pictures, but that's the problem of those willing to do them. As I said in another posts, in a way, this society is still of slaves. Ok, this sounds harsh, a definition comes handy. A slave is anyone who is forced to do something ir order to survive.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have a theory that those who talk about a "society without money" are really talking about a "society where I don't have to work for a living".

Interesting way to putting it. Why would anyone have to work for a living? Seriously. Why not working because you love to do things? Do you feel that if you had no need to work to have food in your house you would spend your day watching tv?

Or...

Would you dedicate yourself to activities that are forbidden to you now because in the current model you need to work to get money to pay for your right to live. How sad is that?

Yes, a small percentage of people might choose to spend their lifes in front of a TV, doing absolutely nothing, but I bet most people will find this possibility undesirable. Most people naturally want to interact, to create, to have interesting things to do with their time. Now, what is interesting for some individual might be hell for another, and that's the beauty of the idea that you can do what you want and still get a descent living, instead of doing something you honestly hate to get it.

What's wrong about thinking in a world in which a football star would have about the same level of life than the garbage guy? Do someone honestly believe that the garbage guy do not deserve to have a nice life?

 

[dudalb]

No way anybody who ignores reality the way you do is a critical thinker, guy.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

No way anybody who ignores reality the way you do is a critical thinker, guy.

Define "reality".

 

[dudalb]

The Reality is if you do not do the basic work to provide the basics to survive, somebody else does. Of course I am not saying you have to raise your own food, but you have to get the money and/or goods to exchange for the goods. And I do not see this changing in the near future.
In other words you either support yourself or leech off somebody else's efforts. And almost every society someone who will not work for a living is despised. The kind of work varies, but the priciple applies.
Your whole tirade here is an attempt to deny that little fact.
Frankly, you are just a peddler of woo in rationalists clothing.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The Reality is if you do not do the basic work to provide the basics to survive, somebody else does. Of course I am not saying you have to raise your own food, but you have to get the money and/or goods to exchange for the goods. And I do not see this changing in the near future.
In other words you either support yourself or leech off somebody else's efforts. And almost every society someone who will not work for a living is despised. The kind of work varies, but the priciple applies.
Your whole tirade here is an attempt to deny that little fact.
Frankly, you are just a peddler of woo in rationalists clothing.

Not worldwide, you are absolutely right. Still, imagine this: a small self sufficient city, with hydroponic farms, wind and solar energy, public transportation... you get the idea. Like you, I do not believe it is possible to simply "eradicate money". Projects like this one should start small, like "Biosphere II". Yes, they might fail but I'm also convinced about they are worth a try.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not worldwide, you are absolutely right. Still, imagine this: a small self sufficient city, with hydroponic farms, wind and solar energy, public transportation... you get the idea. Like you, I do not believe it is possible to simply "eradicate money". Projects like this one should start small, like "Biosphere II". Yes, they might fail but I'm also convinced about they are worth a try.

I don't see how this addresses dudalb's point.

Who grows the food on the farm?
Who builds and maintains the energy plants?
Who drives the buses/trains?
Who pumps the gas?
etc. etc.

How do you ensure no one slacks off?

What if everyone wants to be doctors and artists and programmers and musicians and executives and not enough people want to be bus drivers or factory workers or janitors or repairmen?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't see how this addresses dudalb's point.

Who grows the food on the farm?
Who builds and maintains the energy plants?
Who drives the buses/trains?
Who pumps the gas?
etc. etc.

How do you ensure no one slacks off?

You are right, my answer was incomplete. Thanks for the heads up (I was in a rush answering it).

So what, forcing them to work like current society does is the solution? Having a world full of slaves is the solution? There can't be alternatives for this because is word of god?

Are you two claiming that work itself could not be interesting enough for people actually WANTING to do it? That nobody would get out of their houses to actually keep the energy plants working, or create new ways to gather energy, or new farming techniques? or new ways to keep us healthy?

What if everyone wants to be doctors and artists and programmers and musicians and executives and not enough people want to be bus drivers or factory workers or janitors or repairmen?

Not likely, people is different and like to do different things. Do you honestly believe that nobody likes to wash cars, do laundry or repair things? That everyone loves to use their heads or hearts instead of their hands at work?