Lets say there are much more advanced civilizations observing us, could they have evolved so much that they wouldn’t need money?
Perhaps if they had an almost unlimited supply of energy and goods. Would they still need money?
Assuming things like telepathy, almost unlimited energy resources, would you need money, or could you truly live without the need of it, in conditions that maybe we don’t fully understand or have never experienced?
Assuming there was a super abundance of everything, then you’d have no need for money. There would be no trade. There would also be no property rights. Scarcity of goods is the underlying principle for the need of money and property rights, and with these come civilization.
Is a world of super abundance of everything heaven or hell? Based on the human condition, I’d be inclined to believe it would be much more like hell than heaven. And could you even consider this a civilization, let alone an advanced civilization?
No.
No. We could use computerized barter system instead.
And how does a ‘computerized’ barter system solve the problem of coincidence of wants ?
Why do you think I added computerized?
That is one question a supporter of the Venus Project will always avoid and never answer. Although, their response is that there would be a “new man,” whose wants never coincide with others.
If there is no scarcity of goods/services, then no, because money facilitates exchange, and exchange would be unnecessary with no scarcity.
The answer is: Yes. The conditions we understand and experience now define our world in which energy and goods are what’s scarce, therefore subjects to barter/trading. In ANY civilization (even one with abundant energy and goods) there will be things (concepts, thoughts, ideas, or whatever else we can’t even imagine) that WILL be scarce thus valued by (and valuable to) the agents within it. Without an end (valued goal) there’s no action, and without action there’s no change. Without change, there’s no life (civilization).
Finally, we have NOW abundance of EVERYTHING a cave-man would think a person could ever need or desire (heat, food, shelter), and yet we trade (and use money) like no one has ever used before.
Z.
Are we assuming that everyone will be able to make everything they want?
Under that assumption, there simply would be no life (civilization). Scarcity (valued goal) is necessary for life (civilization) to exist. Agents there may be able to make everything WE now thing one could possibly ever want, but we can’t imagine the nature of every scarcity possible in ANY possible civilization.
Z.
That makes no sense. According to your theory, scarcity necessitates life then the further we get from scarcity the more lifeless society becomes. Yet vice versa, the more scarcity we have, the more life we have. Clearly contradictory.
(About the bolded part). It’s the reverse, actually. Not only does life necessitate scarcity, but it may as well be definied by it.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. You’re arguing with the ludites: “There would eventually be no jobs if we keep building better machines!”. The NATURE of scarcity keeps shifting as life (civilization) becomes more advanced. Yes, we have gone far from heat, food, and shelter being scarce over the last 10k years but go ahead and explain to a caveman how a NYC taxi driver sold his taxi LICENCE and bought a Windows Vista LICENCE with the proceeds. Now extrapolate this difference in the nature of scarcity centuries or light-years away from where we stand now. We have no idea about the nature of scarcity that would be driving agents to action in a future civilization – but we know that it MUST exist if there’s to be life (civilization) to begin with.
Z.
do you acknowledge that artificial government created monopolies such as taxi licenses are a retarding influence on the progress of civilization…
Loaded question, you must admit. A “yes” answer regarding taxi licences may not necessarily imply acknowledgment that all government monopolies are artificial or retardant to civilization’s progress. Moreover, I have never suggested that I find the status-quo size and involvement of government acceptable or optimal in any way – so I’m all the more puzzled by your question. But lest we digress hugely from the interesting OP question, let’s replace taxi licence with an iPhone in my example above.
Z.
Because you don’t understand the economic caluclation problem.
How is that relevant? The issue is not socialism.
It is if there is no money. How will your computer calculate if there are no prices.
No actually you are saying that life under extreme scarcity is more dynamic and lively. Thus the further away from scarcity we move, the more impoverished we become. Should not civilization be deluding itself if scarcity is taken out of the picture more and more?
That doesn’t sound like anything I was saying. Did you read what I wrote – especially the part about the NATURE (type, kind, form) of scarcity (valued goals/ends) constantly changing as a civilization advances? I’m asking this because the only way I could respond to the above is by writing again exactly what I wrote before.
The analogy with the Luddites was mentioned as an example of how a constrained (narrow-minded) view of a concept (‘job’ for Luddites, ‘scarcity’ for you) could lead to misguided conclusions.
Z.