A country without Money how it's work?

[Brainsucker]

Wow, fast and long reply. Thanks Deks. I'll read it more. But after I read Whorfin's post

@Whorfin :

Not necessarily, I was just pointing out that when a human is stating something to another human in Trek and using the term "we" (etc.) it doesn't mean that he speaks for all species or cultures. The UFP is more than Terra or its human descendants, they are just a highly influential, populous segment. The UFP is a confederation of individual worlds, as such it is more akin to the European Union or the United Nations than it is to a sovereign nation, such as the United States of America: the members sometimes don't agree and are very different from each other.

So, according to you UFP is a kind of United Nations type of organization and not United State type of Government? Interesting. Because as far as I know, Federation means the unity of many states type of Government just like USA, not inter countries community like United Nations.

If, UFP is an inter planetary community just like United Nations, then it is a fragile organization that has no authority or the sovereign of a country. Looks at how fragile the UN in RL. They can't even do anything to Syria just because Russia and China vetoed to. And... a United Nations type of organization wouldn't use Federation as their name. They would simply use United Planets, not United Federation of Planets.

To current human nature and all its inherited baggage. Not to human nature after a century or two with no want or need, not to mention social engineering towards the rational goal of avoiding a repetition of the global mistakes that had nearly wiped humanity out once or twice. Gene Roddenberry believed that humanity is perfectible, and he consciously intended the humans in TNG to be more "perfect" than those in TOS, to the chagrin of many of the staff writers. Whether you think its possible or not the people in Star Trek, in general, are intended to be less selfish and more altruistic than us.

In general, individuals depicted as being greedy in Trek generally aren't the heroes, with the possible exception of Quark and his associates. Normally they are villains or obstructions to the eventual solution of a problem.

Well yes, Greed, dream, ambition, etc. The word of "greed" is definitely has negative notion while dream and ambition has more positive one. Greed means that you want more and more, while ambition is a destination that you want to reach.

After re-thinking about the Trek's type of Earth Society, I think that it is possible to be realized. What they need are a new type of doctrine to brainwash the human society on Earth, and propaganda machine that make them believe that the system is right. It just like what happen to the Earth in Medieval Era. Where church was very dominant in the society, and force the society to believe in God. Well, it worked, although it was not perfect.

The difference is that the medieval era people were stupid and poor; they were brainwashed with preaching and the fear of God. While the Earth Society in Trek are matured and smart. They are brainwashed with leisure and idealistic ideology. But... I suspect that this kind of society has one weakness. It is the competitive environment.

If people "choose" to work rather than "need" to work, then only some of them would CHOOSE to work. The other would prefer to enjoy the luxury life and become unemployed. And because it is a choice without reward, then the competitive environment would vanish.

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?

[T'Girl]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

Because as far as I know, Federation means the unity of many states type of Government just like USA, not inter countries community like United Nations.

The word federation actual has many meaning and usages, the one you cited is just one. It can also be a league like structure or a association. Basically a federation is a collection of peoples, or countries, or communities, or organizations, or groups that combine for a particular purpose.

And... a United Nations type of organization wouldn't use Federation as their name. They would simply use United Planets, not United Federation of Planets.

If you think about it, why do they use both "united," and "federation?" Wouldn't one or the other, combined with "planets," kind of cover it?

[Brainsucker]

thanks for your reply Merry Christmas

I don't know if Wikipedia is a valid Wiki, but this is "Federation" according to it :

A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, 'covenant'), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the latter.[1]

It is definitely different to United Nation, but it fit to the characteristic of USA model of government. Plus, according to Wiki, it is a union of states with a central Federal government above them.

[The Castellan]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

Interesting. So it is only in Terra that the "No Money society" is happen. But I don't think that greed is already a foreign concept for human being. Because greed is one of basic human nature. Without Greed, they will stick on the planet Earth and won't explore the galaxy. Plus, if knowledge and the usefulness to society more fulfilling than the accumulation of digits in an electronic account or bigger and better mansions, then human is not evolving, but devolving. Because they evolve from a complex society into more simple society that care only two things in their life. Work for the society (without payment) and study.

and... how could capitalism be happen in a country without money? The Earth of UFP is definitely a communism type of society, if it's work like what you write. Capitalism is born from the greed of Human being. Without greed, no one will establish a private company. Because nobody want to become rich.

Yeees, here I go again

I like how you think.

As for conspiracy theories... well, for one thing, we would be rather closed-minded to discredit the notion that such things are not possible... especially seeing how our history has examples of conspiracies that turned out to be accurate.
Plus... Humans seem to apply the notion of 'impossible' too often - this mainly stems from lack of exposure to relevant general education.

I think it's mainly because they don't WANT to accept the idea, you know it's like the ostrich in the sand thing.

Our history is FULL of events showing those in power don't always have our benefits and interests in mind, just their own. Governments and military have always wanted to take away more rights, freedom and privacy from their people, and use theoretical security as the justification.....happened in Nazi Germany, happened in Communist Russia, happening now in China and America (Yes, it's happening in America as well)...and also groups have been made to allow/help those governments do just that. It's been around for a long time and if someone says it can't happen here, because "IT'S AMERICA!!!!!!" or "It's the 21st century!" or "It won't last that long, or they have a good reason to do it!" shows to me how historically IGNORANT some people, especially mainstreamers, can be. Plus the word conspiracy and conspiracy theorist should not be looked upon with disgust or ridicule, most people that attack them or their suggestions often fear they might actually be right, and naysayers often fight harder to stop them if the theorists are correct. for 9-11, for example, Jesse Ventura brought up on interviews, "why should we all go "How dare you?!" if someone questions things like 9-11 and so on?" We're supposed to learn by asking questions and not just take it unquestionably.

Notion of impossibility is not so much as educational, as more emotional, that something long ridiculed may actually be the right answer. Or that they simply don't like the theory or don't want to be proven wrong, or possibly lose their position in life. Like if Tesla's work was not destroyed by that asshole, JP Morgan, and to a lesser extent, Thomas Edison, we could not only have escaped the oil trap, but maybe be possibly a century more advanced in technology....plus I've read so many news articles of alternative energy scientists and researchers found dead....all labeled as 'suicides'.....I already smell a rat, there, since I refuse to believe that THAT many alternative energy scientists are THAT depressed. Plus with the middle east.....our government pretty much helped these guys get in power decades ago, and also a vain of lithium has been discovered recently, worth about a trillion bucks.....and they say it's NOT because of wealth and resources. And I nearly got expelled from school when arguing with a science teacher after he threw away my scientific notes I made regarding both abiotic oil theory, that its not organic based and not finite, plus some stuff that would knock newton and einstein's work down a few pegs....but he would not even let me discuss it....and boy did we have a fight in class.....become a class hero and made that old fart teacher eat a little bit of long over due crow. Hell, there was one guy on this forum who said guys like Eric Van Daniken, a proponent of Ancient Alien theory, be prosecuted for the theories he's been circulating. Not only does that reek of the mentality from the dark ages, with a dash of Gestapo thrown in, but also intolerance to anything that questions the conventional. Seems people, authority figures especially, would rather be correct than happy.

You get a cookie....oh hell, a box of cookies, friend.


With money....to me money is only a means to an end, when it becomes the end itself, there's a big problem, and that problem is happening now. Also, I live in a small, rural, farming community....and when one of us is in a jam, we help each other out, not asking for anything in return. I also help folks with problems, not asking for anything. I give advise or lend a hand if asked, not asking for anything, except where the bathroom is and MAYBE a glass of water. And if we want our future to be more like Trek and less like Mad Max or most humanity in Dr. Who, money's priority needs big time adjustments, and we'll never achieve anything real if we're only busting our butts to pay the bills and taxes.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

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?

I'm Asian also, but I believe that Trek's idealistic Earth Society is doable, it just will take alot of work, many decades or centuries of education, and probably alot of blood shed between people in power and those not in power.

I think it can happen, just not easily. Breaking away the current socio economic / education mindset will take a long time to do, but it'll have to start at some point.

[The Castellan]

KamenRiderBlade wrote:

---

I'm Asian also, but I believe that Trek's idealistic Earth Society is doable, it just will take alot of work, many decades or centuries of education, and probably alot of blood shed between people in power and those not in power.

I think it can happen, just not easily. Breaking away the current socio economic / education mindset will take a long time to do, but it'll have to start at some point.

Actually, I think the opposite of what he said, our society right now is stagnant. When money is talking, advances are slowed down or downright ceased. Plus look at what competition brought us: Arguments, conflict, war, lying, cheating, stealing, killing.....just to be/stay #1. Plus I am sure we'd have better energy, medicines, and so on if competition and money were not the focus....since I feel there's more to gain by NOT advancing than advancing. Big oil's making billions in profits....you think they'd congratulate whomever brings out a superior energy source and kindly step down? I doubt it. You think big pharma would allow a cancer cure be known if it was something as simple as a mixture of a few herbs or minerals, something that you can't patent? I doubt it. Also, one day of war is a lot more profitable than an entire year of peace time.

Now I might be called a loony, but if I was to discover something like free energy or some miracle cure, I would only patent it to keep big business from exploiting it and post the design or formula on the internet, on TV, on printed media so everyone and anyone could get it. I'd not make a cent off it and the greedy power mongers could not legally touch it. If I were to make such a discovery, I'd not want a single penny from it, I don't put progress/salvation on a check book or whatever, it's to be used by everyone and no one has ANY rights to them whatsoever, not me, not you, not politicians, especially not military, no one....it's to be used by everyone.

[Deks]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

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.

[KamenRiderBlade]

The Castellan wrote:

---

Actually, I think the opposite of what he said, our society right now is stagnant. When money is talking, advances are slowed down or downright ceased. Plus look at what competition brought us: Arguments, conflict, war, lying, cheating, stealing, killing.....just to be/stay #1. Plus I am sure we'd have better energy, medicines, and so on if competition and money were not the focus....since I feel there's more to gain by NOT advancing than advancing. Big oil's making billions in profits....you think they'd congratulate whomever brings out a superior energy source and kindly step down? I doubt it. You think big pharma would allow a cancer cure be known if it was something as simple as a mixture of a few herbs or minerals, something that you can't patent? I doubt it. Also, one day of war is a lot more profitable than an entire year of peace time.

Now I might be called a loony, but if I was to discover something like free energy or some miracle cure, I would only patent it to keep big business from exploiting it and post the design or formula on the internet, on TV, on printed media so everyone and anyone could get it. I'd not make a cent off it and the greedy power mongers could not legally touch it. If I were to make such a discovery, I'd not want a single penny from it, I don't put progress/salvation on a check book or whatever, it's to be used by everyone and no one has ANY rights to them whatsoever, not me, not you, not politicians, especially not military, no one....it's to be used by everyone.

You do realize that my previous posts were all in agreement with you effectively.

The current society is screwed up because of the socioeconomic structure that is ingrained. Because of the financial system and power grabs, we aren't leveraging techology to it's fullest potential and making life better for everybody.

All sides want power.

Russia / China / Iran / etc. wanted more control by writing in rules in the ITU conference for more control over the internet.

I'm not saying America is better, USA has plenty of flaws in capitol hill and the sheer arrogance of just killing what we don't like instead of truly trying to work things out.

[Longinus]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

If people "choose" to work rather than "need" to work, then only some of them would CHOOSE to work. The other would prefer to enjoy the luxury life and become unemployed.

Yeah, probably. So?

And because it is a choice without reward, then the competitive environment would vanish.

There is a reward, just not material one. There is acclaim and appreciation of the society, the exitement and feeling of accomplishement.

To me this doesn't seem like a hard thing to crasp. Material rewards have been all of the human history just one of the many motivations for doing things.

[Deks]

Longinus wrote:

---

Yeah, probably. So?

I think what Brainsucker may not take into consideration that civilization as we know it... especially for a technologically developed age as we live in today, requires VERY FEW people to actually work and drive technology forward at faster rates - because most jobs are unproductive to society as is and only serve to 'move money around' for the sake of monetary based economy - actual production is automated/mechanized to a large degree (and we can automate so much more with existing technology alone).

Besides, the notion that 'most people would simply choose to live a luxury life' is an assumption without basis.
It depends on the environment.
If you simply transposed people from an existing system to a non-monetary one without exposing people to relevant general education, informing them of sustainability or how it all works, you will end up with the same problems we have today.

There is a reward, just not material one. There is acclaim and appreciation of the society, the exitement and feeling of accomplishement.

To me this doesn't seem like a hard thing to grasp. Material rewards have been all of the human history just one of the many motivations for doing things.

Exactly.
'Rewards' - if people really need to look at life like that - could be seen as a sense of accomplishment.
The realization you completed a task using your knowledge/skills to help others (for example).
I did this on many occasions without asking for money or compensation of any kind.
Money was demonstrated to be ineffective and cause a detrimental effect on people when they needed to actually think, use creativity, and problem-solving skills.

[Brainsucker]

KamenRiderBlade wrote:

---

I'm Asian also, but I believe that Trek's idealistic Earth Society is doable, it just will take alot of work, many decades or centuries of education, and probably alot of blood shed between people in power and those not in power.

I think it can happen, just not easily. Breaking away the current socio economic / education mindset will take a long time to do, but it'll have to start at some point.

an Asian, and Kamen Rider fan? Nice to see you here.

I think a country like Trek's Earth model is do-able. But... with those lazy people who just enjoy luxury and leisure life, and only some virtues people choose to work for the community, I don't know how this country will develop.

I think what Brainsucker may not take into consideration that civilization as we know it... especially for a technologically developed age as we live in today, requires VERY FEW people to actually work and drive technology forward at faster rates - because most jobs are unproductive to society as is and only serve to 'move money around' for the sake of monetary based economy - actual production is automated/mechanized to a large degree (and we can automate so much more with existing technology alone).

Well yes, there are only a handful of inventors who successfully develop new technologies. And what jobs are unproductive to society as is only serve to "move money around? Tell me some example of it! Gambling den? Whore House? Oh yes, You're right. Banking system? Trading (export - Import) ? Manufacture (clothes? electronic? vehicle? cigarette (oh for Cigarette, I agree with you, it is unproductive for society))

You know, the drive of monetary based economy is capitalism. Well, maybe it has many flaw, but with capitalism, there are competition. And with competition, ideas and innovation are born. Apple won't develop I-pad, I-Phone, etc, if it's not because of monetary reason. Our cars won't be like we know today if there is no monetary reason from the producers. The industries would be the same as 19th century if there is no monetary reason to improve it. It is not because they are too greedy like the Ferengi (although still greedy), but because of the competition. They improve, and innovate because they want to become better than their competitors.

[Deks]

Most people who don't want to work today do so because they don't want to get stuck doing jobs they don't like (and options to get a chance at working on jobs they might like are next to non-existent).
So... most of the time, this is actually their way of 'rebelling' in the present system.

Society would be just fine even if 'most' of the global population were so-called 'free-loaders'.
Look at today's society and most jobs. Most aren't contributing to society in a productive capacity at all - they are utterly useless to Humanity's needs and development at large.

[Brainsucker]

Deks wrote:

---

Most people who don't want to work today do so because they don't want to get stuck doing jobs they don't like (and options to get a chance at working on jobs they might like are next to non-existent).
So... most of the time, this is actually their way of 'rebelling' in the present system.

Society would be just fine even if 'most' of the global population were so-called 'free-loaders'.
Look at today's society and most jobs. Most aren't contributing to society in a productive capacity at all - they are utterly useless to Humanity's needs and development at large.

Now I understand what you want to tell me. Yes, I agree with this. Monetary based economy system is indeed make people selfish, and think only for themselves rather than contributing to their society

Everything have their own positive and negative effects, I think.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Brainsucker wrote:

---

Well yes, there are only a handful of inventors who successfully develop new technologies. And what jobs are unproductive to society as is only serve to "move money around? Tell me some example of it! Gambling den? Whore House? Oh yes, You're right. Banking system? Trading (export - Import) ? Manufacture (clothes? electronic? vehicle? cigarette (oh for Cigarette, I agree with you, it is unproductive for society))

Secretary's, Insurance agents (the entire insurance system), Reality TV stars, stock broker's, most CEO's and upper management. The list can go on about who isn't being a truly useful member of society and just occupies a job for the sake of it.

You know, the drive of monetary based economy is capitalism. Well, maybe it has many flaw, but with capitalism, there are competition. And with competition, ideas and innovation are born. Apple won't develop I-pad, I-Phone, etc, if it's not because of monetary reason. Our cars won't be like we know today if there is no monetary reason from the producers. The industries would be the same as 19th century if there is no monetary reason to improve it. It is not because they are too greedy like the Ferengi (although still greedy), but because of the competition. They improve, and innovate because they want to become better than their competitors.

There is also monopoly's and holding technology back for the sake of greed. The Apple global lawsuits in the smartphone market and various other markets. You've got to admit that "Rounded Edges" on a smartphone is a silly thing to patent. "Swiping" at the edge of a webpage and have it snap back has been done by others. There are countless things wrong with current system, apple is just one of the causes of it.

Competition is all well and good, but most companies out there aim to become monopolies and stifle competition. Look at all the industries who have become 2 company races or 2.x company races and watch how progress has slowed.

Commerical Graphics card is now limited to AMD / Nvidia
Commercial CPU's are limited to Intel / AMD
Sound Card's have Creative / small no names
Hard Drives have Western Digital / Seagate / small names
The entire US ISP infrastructure is limited to regional monopolies of Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox.
PC OS options: Microsoft (by a large margin), Linux, Apple

Competition is good, but capitalism aims for monopolies.

[Brainsucker]

KamenRiderBlade wrote:

---

You do realize that my previous posts were all in agreement with you effectively.

The current society is screwed up because of the socioeconomic structure that is ingrained. Because of the financial system and power grabs, we aren't leveraging techology to it's fullest potential and making life better for everybody.

All sides want power.

Russia / China / Iran / etc. wanted more control by writing in rules in the ITU conference for more control over the internet.

I'm not saying America is better, USA has plenty of flaws in capitol hill and the sheer arrogance of just killing what we don't like instead of truly trying to work things out.

Power grabs doesn't require financial system to be happen. Even in a non existence monetary system country, power grabs can be happened.

KamenRiderBlade wrote:

---

Secretary's, Insurance agents (the entire insurance system), Reality TV stars, stock broker's, most CEO's and upper management. The list can go on about who isn't being a truly useful member of society and just occupies a job for the sake of it.

There is also monopoly's and holding technology back for the sake of greed. The Apple global lawsuits in the smartphone market and various other markets. You've got to admit that "Rounded Edges" on a smartphone is a silly thing to patent. "Swiping" at the edge of a webpage and have it snap back has been done by others. There are countless things wrong with current system, apple is just one of the causes of it.

Competition is all well and good, but most companies out there aim to become monopolies and stifle competition. Look at all the industries who have become 2 company races or 2.x company races and watch how progress has slowed.

Commerical Graphics card is now limited to AMD / Nvidia
Commercial CPU's are limited to Intel / AMD
Sound Card's have Creative / small no names
Hard Drives have Western Digital / Seagate / small names
The entire US ISP infrastructure is limited to regional monopolies of Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox.
PC OS options: Microsoft (by a large margin), Linux, Apple

Competition is good, but capitalism aims for monopolies.

The bold one : Insurance Company guys will not agree with you. But I won't waste my energy to defend them. And I hope Star Trek Series and this website Admin are not in your long list. Or else, why would you here in the first place?

Yes, monopoly is indeed one of the Capitalism negative effects. The question is, why Capitalism Countries like USA generally richer and more advanced technologically than a non capitalism country like Nepal? Even China grabs Capitalism System now, and looks at how they improve.

Ah, I realized now. Our debate has gone into which is better between socialism and capitalism system. It has already has gone too off topic. And back to topic, Trek's Earth economy model is indeed an extreme socialism system.