As I said before, the only reason that WE hadn't eliminated money (in every shape/form) from our daily lives is because the general population is ill-informed of our capabilities and lacks access to relevant general education (most people who do have access to education are subjected to 'industrialized education') which is why they are subject to manipulation.
And of course, only those who have access to 'money' can only hope to actually survive... let alone get an education or do anything else.
In short... due to lack of proper general education, people today (even those with 'higher education') are prone to being manipulated because the information they receive is filtered to suit a specific task and to train you in a specific line of WORK.
Yep, educated does not always mean intelligent. For example....the Mayans....the average Mayan had more knowledge of science, astronomy and mathematics than what would be considered today's "Educated man". I've met people with PHD's, Masters and so on, and were rock stupid.
You have to work in order to demonstrate that you are worthy to live.
Now that's SICK.
Yep, why ya think so many in history wanted to wipe out cripples, the old, the handicapped and down right poor folks? Happens even today. I mean there were programs, now unclassified, about actually wiping out or reducing populations of certain people, including Native Americans during the 70's, more's to come if we don't put a stop to it.
[/QUOTE]As for Trek... its not difficult to imagine a money-less economy where there is no currency of any kind in any shape or form
Its a completely different mind-set.
Humans of today often give things 'value' because they are taught to do so (though its irrelevant due to our capacity of producing abundance for the past century in basically every field).
They also have a tendency to equate everything with 'cost' (mainly because our economic system is based in money) - even though money stopped representing actual resources a century ago and 'cost' or 'cost efficiency' has nothing to do with how much resources we actually have, technical/technological capability or efficiency.
On the contrary... cost efficiency simply means that a company will use the CHEAPEST (for them) method to develop something so they could earn more profits - they have to do this if they expect to remain in the game.
Planned obsolescence is designed into every product to encourage consumerism (even though we can easily design things not to break down and to be upgrade-able and easily recycle-able), which leads to cyclical consumption, enormous waste, little to no recycling - all of which is not sustainable in the long run.[/QUOTE] Yep. Or llie and make it sound true. Like with oil...for many years, I've been talking about how it's abiotic, made through hydo carbons and other stuff that some folks here would get bored after reading a few paragraphs. And how it's plentiful (you don't make record profits in the billions on a dwindelling resource, especially when demand was not that high). It's amazing how some people get
angery when I even suggest it. Plus with all the outsourcing where we manufacture producs of questionable quality and safety, pay the workers a month what a domestic worker would make a hour, and then export those questionable products back home, just because it's "cost effective", and no one at home being able to buy that cheap junk, I see something not right, there.
k... I would imagine that if someone proposes an idea... a question is posed:
do we have the technology and resources to make it?
The answer in real life to that question is always 'yes' (that would especially apply to the Federation that has access to 8000 ly's full of energy, resources, etc.)
But... in real life .... there's never enough 'money' to do something. Its either 'too expensive', or 'cost prohibitive' - none of which again has anything to do with how many resources we have or our technological capability to pull something off in a technically most efficient way possible (actually, efficiency is the enemy of profits).
Yes, like free energy. Tesla was about to make it happen, when that ASSHOLE, J. P. Morgan, may he burn in hell, and that other ASSHOLE, Edison (Remember, Edison was a ruthless business man first, a scientist second) made sure it would not happen, since no money would be made....and we are probably 100 or so years behind what we should be today. Same for abiotic oil, if it were well known, oil would drop to like 20 bucks a barrel. Plus how many times have ya bought something from Wal-Mart, and had to bring it back because it broke shortly after using it?
Today, our industry is almost completely automated. And we can easily automate 75% of the global workforce with the technology at our disposal (though, 100% is possible because if we don't have something automated, then we simply design a device to fulfill that function - this has already been done).
Yea, and look at all the power failures and accidents that happen. Machines can do things good, but somethings just can't be done better by them.
I think that what some people are afraid is that 'no money = communism' (equated with dictatorship, subjugation and suffering).
That is a fallacy. For one thing, Communism used money and banks and was also perverted into something it wasn't - and it never perceived resources as FINITE (no 'ism' including Capitalism, does that).
And who the heck says that you automatically HAVE to have dictators?
Only difference between us folks like Communists and Nazis was for them the government took over the banks and corporations, today the banks and corporations are taking over the government, most of it, anyhow. The levels with clearence above the president pretty much are immune since they are friends with the banks and so on. And, seeing how things are, we got dictators, too, they just use theoretical protection as an esxcuse to take awya rights, freedoms and privacy...and they use terrorists as the boogeyman as oppossed to communists.
In a world where the entire global population has access to general relevant education, you wouldn't have a need for governments in the first place.
Over 90% of crime today is based on money.
Eliminate that, provide access abundance to everyone, and you eliminate majority of problems in 1 big swoop.
However, you cannot simply transition into a Resource Based Economy overnight and throw people into it - that would simply produce same problems because you have to educate people (expose them to the intricate ways of how it all works and familiarize them with other relevant knowledge - sustainability, recycling, newest technologies, etc.)
Yep, knowledge is power, hence why governments want to keep you stupid and distracted....be it reality TV, sunday afternoon football, videogames, tobacco, booze, drugs, an economy where many are working either 12 or more hours a day, or have more than one job. It's like Angel One, where the leader said the rebels would be too busy trying to survive, rather than rebel, saying progress might not be stopped, but can at slowed down a bit. People are slowing waking up, and those in power are getting scared, as they should be. And at the risk of ridicule, the mayans were on to smething about 2012, it either means things will change, or, as I see it, be the start....the lighting of the fuse, as it were, for something going to change, and I for one welcome it.
Trek was made for American TV and had numerous writers.
That's why we saw as much inconsistency... but the general meaning would apply that money doesn't exist for Humans or the Federation (which was repeated several times over, and not just once).
Yep, personally, I'd go over to that world, without hessitation, sure is a hell of a lot better that what we have going right now.
