Not having to offer a service to trade for food, housing, etc., would there be scarcity of services/innovation? What does a mind need to be curious/get inspired? and how do we redesign the university to integrate it with the community i.e. infrastructure, labs etc? So everyone inspired has access to tools

Humans are intelligent animals whom live on food and security. Removing such necessity, there is no point of fighting over anything.

Unless we evolve into sentient beings with divine consciousness.

Speaking of redesigning universities, the academics should promote lifelong learning and open days for the community to participate in. Encourage the general populace to embrace the power of knowledge through simple fun.

A friendly debate on money on a friends wall between myself and a few friends of his. I just finished writing this bit, and liked it so much that I decided to note it so I can go back to it if this kind of discussion ever comes up again.

_________________________________________________



My initial statement to them after reading their good quality banter back and forth about Capitalism and such, which doesn't matter to this note really. Anyway:



I love the back and forth between you guys. Good stuff.



But try this on for size: How can any "medium exchange" operating system function if, for example, just one of its key variables (labor for income) is destroyed by the very innovation... spawned by the participants in the system?



Moreover, when such technical capabilities become so advanced and robust that they render entire markets insolvent (because high productivity can be accomplished with little to no human labor involvement, flooding said market with product at negligible cost over long term time frames), what then becomes of those people who financially benefited from the previous scarcity of that market?



In other words, if ones existence and quality of life directly depends on making money in the system (because that is what they are taught), and that money is made because of a perceived scarcity in the market (either real or manufactured), and suddenly technical capabilities create abundance in that very market for every human on the planet, how is that person supposed to live?



(Passing the buck and saying they can get another job isn't a solution when one considers the down line ramifications of all vital markets being dwarfed by technical abundance). In short, there will come a time when there is no "other job" to get, yet production and capability will still be strong and viable...but purchasing power will be squat.

_________________________________________________



Sean's reply:



Well, in the short term, it creates massive unemployment. It's possible to reduce long-term unemployment from that sector with unemployment assistance, and creating incentives for continuing adult education (i.e., to retrain).



And the logical conclusion of that is "Star Trek."

_________________________________________________



Nick's reply:



I'm not too concerned about the "Player Piano" phenomenon considering the technological evolution over the past century and the fact that people actually work more than their grandparents/great grandparents did. Also, there are countless examples of new technology creating whole new industries. For example, I'm sure the candlestick industry took a hit when the light bulb went mainstream, but look at all the jobs that came of building out the electric grid, making new light bulbs, light fixtures, interior design, energy efficiency, energy production, etc. Another obvious one - how about the IT industry?



Doug, I'm not sure your last paragraph is true - you need to explain how production will be viable if no one can purchase the produced goods. Otherwise, what's the point of production? How does the producer keep on producing if he can't sell goods and be able to afford production costs?



That all said, there are definitely short term unemployment issues when new technology is introduced (Journalism?). In that case I'm with Sean - have education programs available for people to retrain.

____________________________________________



My reply to them...my address to Nick being the bigger of the two posts:



Sean - Ah, but unemployment assistance requires money, and if the system is choking itself, where does the money come from? In a way, yes, it kind of is Star Trek that we’re moving towards in the 21st century, but without transporters and replicators. Replicators might come if we can ever manage to directly influence atomic structure and bonding to make complex molecules, proteins and such...ergo foods and materials...but for now, we do have the technical means to create abundance without replicators.



Nick - “people actually work more than their grandparents/great grandparents did.”



Working more does not equate to a better quality of life or a sustainable one. In fact, it can be quite socially detrimental when one considers dual income families where the parents don’t have time to be parents and expect schools and day cares to raise their kids while they toil away, eroding the family unit, and developing kids as undisciplined jackholes whose idea of love is based on materialistic goods given by guilty parents who can’t be there. The evidence of that is rampant if one just cares to look around.



You posed excellent questions. I'll address them one by one.



“I'm sure the candlestick industry took a hit when the light bulb went mainstream, but look at all the jobs that came of building out the electric grid, making new light bulbs, light fixtures, interior design, energy efficiency, energy production, etc. Another obvious one - how about the IT industry?”



You are correct. Throughout history mankind has been able to shift from one job sector to another. However, at no time in human history have we literally eroded or eliminated the need for human labor all together. That is why now is completely different than then. Robotics and automation have completely changed the paradigm.



Unfortunately, you’re echoing a programmed sentiment that is drilled into our heads ever since we’re kids. We are “programmed” to believe that no matter what happens, money is necessary, it will always exist, and in order to get it you need a job, and the “market” will develop jobs to facilitate that requirement. Well, that’s complete BS.



I’d like you to do a small bit of research and look at today vs. 60 years ago. How many jobs did the average family hold in the 50’s vs. today to sustain that family. What was the debt level then vs. now. How many credit cards did people have then vs now? What were the savings levels then vs. now? What was the purchasing power then vs. now? And keep in mind, there were no computers or advanced automation then. Most of the industrial sector and agricultural sector still required manpower, so there was balance.



So in short, yeah, new jobs sometimes show up in today's world, but not enough to employ everyone at the same level they had before, so they have to get two jobs, work longer hours, or both parents have to work, eroding the family unit as mentioned above, or they have no savings because they live paycheck to paycheck and couldn't save if they wanted too. The article that started this thread kinda illustrates that point.



The theory that technology simply moves jobs from one area to another only applied when humans still did the brunt of the work. It no longer applies when technology replaces human labor completely. One robot can replace 10 workers and require 2 techs to maintain it. Net loss of 8 jobs. Multiply that over the world and in all sectors that could be automated (most of them) and then tell me what jobs you think we'd invent to cover that adequately.



“...you need to explain how production will be viable if no one can purchase the produced goods. Otherwise, what's the point of production?”



The point of production is to serve a need. We’ve simply lost sight of the core reason for making anything, having our minds indoctrinated with the notion that money is the goal, not actually performing the service.



“How does the producer keep on producing if he can't sell goods and be able to afford production costs?”



Assumption 1: Related to both statements actually...You assume people would be purchasing the goods. It’s not about selling things, it’s about accessing things. You don’t buy air to breathe, do you? No. Why not? Because it’s naturally abundant (until we kill the atmosphere and all the plant life that makes the oxygen we need) and no one controls how much you get, so it’s free. Creating a false scarcity and artificially inflating value is how the system works now, because if something is easily abundant with little to no human labor requirement, its market value drops to zero, even though its intrinsic value might be high.



So what am I proposing? Technical abundance.



Natural abundance requires minimal work by people, in that we have to maintain a healthy environment so nature can do the work for us and we all benefit. And nature isn’t interested in being paid for the work it does. It simply produces.



Similarly, technical abundance requires minimal work by people, in that we have to maintain the systems that do the work, and when it comes to automation and robotics, they don’t care about being paid for the work they do. And in some cases, tech can fix tech. The whole “robots building/maintaining robots” scenario, which is actually perfectly plausible given today's technical means.



And please don’t go down the road of Skynet and the Terminator films, or any other dramatic sensationalist story telling. All that does is debase the conversation with hype and sci-fi fear tactics.



Assumption 2: A person is responsible for the production. I kinda covered that above when discussing how technology is the dominant producer, not people. People monitor, as needed, and that’s about it. The rest of their lives can be spent enjoying life, advancing their educations and pursuing their personal passions without ever adversely affecting their high quality of life.



Robots don’t care how much they produce, for how long, or who gets it. As long as the production levels match the demand for the region served, they will work 24/7/365 without breaks or complaints. And given our robust clean energy capabilities, this is possible right now, today, for virtually every vital industry product we create.



Now, will people be required to make sure the tech functions? Yup. Not that many, but technical personnel will be necessary, as eluded too above. So where do those people come from? Last I checked, there are hundreds of volunteer social groups and clubs, like robotic clubs, where people spend hours upon hours and spend a lot of their money on the “hobby” of technology and robotics, not receiving a dime in return, but loving it nonetheless.



I know this, if I lived in a world where I knew my biological and quality of life needs were always met, thanks to the proper use of technology to benefit mankind, I would still passionately work in the arena of space exploration and development.



So in a world where money doesn’t exist, because that’s the end result when money becomes irrelevant as a means to manage resources, you open up the opportunity for anyone from anywhere to gain the relevant education they want (no cost), to become the people who love and enjoy maintaining, improving and advancing those technical systems, or anything else in society for that matter. Plus, you have to factor in that roughly 2 billion people would now have free access to educations they currently don't have, making the pool of expertise much more vast, which is a bonus when you don't have to compete for jobs. It helps share to load.



The quality of life for the population of the planet is no longer dependent on financial income, but on technical capability, collaborative open source information sharing (like how Linux, Firefox and other open source systems of today operate) and a dedication to the proper management of the Earth’s resources for the whole of humanity and its future generations (part of the education base for all humanity), which therefore spawns a natural passion to constantly innovate, invent and advance all our systems and ideas to constantly improve efficiency and sustainability.



After all, we only have one finite planet, and people today have forgotten that in their pursuit of constant consumption to “grow the economy”. We don’t need economic growth, we need economic balance and sustainability.



3. If a person is the producer, what’s their incentive? Their incentive is somewhat described above. They enjoy what they do, and their quality of life doesn’t depend on what they love to do. No more starving artists. lol.



Also, the idea that people are solely motivated by money has been proven false time and again when considering the environmental conditions involved, and conversely, when money comes into play, people can be just as motivated to do bad things more easily (see last link of evidence).



See the following evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/user/theRSAorg#p/c/...F/3/pQItB5uoiHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=related
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/201...s-talk-is-cheap

Side note to consider...the most noted minds in human history (Galileo, Tesla, Einstein, Pasteur, Jonas Salk (polio vaccine) and more) were never, ever motivated by financial gain to discover what they did. They might have been paid (to survive) but they didn't do their work for profit. Salk is one of the most recognized examples of this. His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"



We have been brainwashed to think that money = oxygen, and that we cannot operate in any other way, and that we are “hard wired” to be greedy or whatever...which is also scientifically false, but that would be another long post in itself. lol.



Wow...with that said...this post is long. Sorry for that, but when posed questions, I tend to give complete answers. Credit to Douglas Mallette