View Single Post
Old December 16 2012, 10:16 AM   #22
Rear Admiral
Re: A country without Money how it's work?

Brainsucker wrote: View Post
I don't know about how Western people think about life, but I'm an Asian irl. Maybe I'm not idealistic enough to understand the idealistic Trek's Earth Society like the other's do. Because what I know is a workable society and a not workable one. And I believe that the Trek's idealistic Earth Society is not workable. Because it would cause stagnation to the Human society. Without competition, how would humanity improve?
Human beings advanced most when they cooperated, not competed with each other.
The monetary system is slowing us down in terms of technological advancement because, instead of doing things that are doable from a pure perception of 'resources and technology', we ignore that, and go on to apply fictional notion of 'cost'.
No one asks themselves: 'do we have the technology and resources to do it?'
Instead they ask: 'who's going to pay for it and how much does it cost?'

Money stopped representing resources well over 100 years ago due to our ability to produce material abundance through technology.

If something is 'cost prohibitive', is means that its technologically possible to pull off (in abundance no less) for everyone, but its deemed too expensive for a given company to put it out, because, when you are in a market-system, your primary goals are to 'remain in the game' and accumulate profits.
What you see in the market is not innovation at all.
Its usually decades old technology that just became 'cheap enough' for the manufacturer to make and sell.

Take mag-lev trains for example.
They were invented a LONG time ago.
By 1972, it was well known that we could create vacuumed mag-lev trains that would achieve speeds of 6500km/h, and the non-vacuumed versions would go at speeds of 450km/h... requiring little to no maintenance, and being up to 100x more energy efficient.
The ENTIRE GLOBE could have been connected with this technology (with every city) in 10 years (by 1982)with the technology at our disposal at the time.
Did we (and do we still) have the materials and the technology to do it?
Of course... only now we can do it in less than 10 years.
Only... from a monetary point of view... this kind of undertaking is not 'practical' because it's EXPENSIVE.
Technology and resources are NOT the problem to do it... money is.

The market system is obsessed with 'cost efficiency'.
Cost efficiency = technological inefficiency (because we use cheap/outdated/inefficient materials and means of production).
We also intentionally design technology/tools to break down and to be inefficient from the start, because that allows companies to create revisions of existing products once every 12 to 24 months so they can have future profits - however, that's not innovation.
We already had the ability to create 22nm CPU's (or lower) in the 1990's with existing materials and technology.
It wasn't done because it was deemed 'cost prohibitive' and why would they bother to do so?
Companies stand to make huge profits by simply creating less advanced technology and making revisions to it as time goes on, instead of creating the 'best' of what we can do.
And that is with inefficient materials - imagine what would happen if we created our technology from superior synthetic materials that can be made in abundance that actually reflects our latest scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge and practical application of it are at least 60 to 100 years ahead of presently used technology.

In a system where EVERYONE are exposed to relevant general education, are free to pursue their interests and CHOOSE to work if they desire, where they can communicate/cooperate with each other and where they don't have to worry about basic necessities of life... where we focus to use technology for betterment of everyone creating the BEST of what is possible in a sustainable capacity... you would see a literal explosion of technological advancement on a regular basis.

Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein (to name a few), were not motivated by money to develop ideas, theories and practical models for much of the tools/technology currently in use.
Most scientists today do NOT pursue their goals because they think there's good money to be made in it.
A lot of people who became teachers are doing that job because this is something they want to do and not because there's huge monetary gain in it.

The current system does a bang-up job in distorting values.

This notion that 'competition' is better than cooperation is a byproduct of a system which effectively works AGAINST nature.
Nature demonstrated that its effectively based on symbiosis and ALL biological systems working together (not each system working for itself).
Our human bodies wouldn't be able to survive if independent organs were 'competitive' and 'greedy' - it would cause a systematic collapse that would create a shortage of resources to other organs and cause severe impairment (such as death).
Balance and sustainability is how nature and our bodies work - otherwise, through competition alone, such biological systems would collapse a LONG time ago (and so would our civilization - such as it is).
If Human behavior couldn't be altered, we'd still be living in caves.
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline   Reply With Quote