tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
tombi123 said:
"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival." |
Just out of curiosity, in this system, how would anything get done, and who would do it?
What's the motivation to work?
|
The majority of work is done by robots. Money isn't the only motivator. (Proper) Scientists don't work for the money, its finding out the unknown that motivates them.
|
Even if the Scientist doesn't work for money, the tools he uses only exist because someone does.
A computer today allows us to calculate things that would take a thousand years without one. Without capitalism, those computers would not exist.
As for the robot thing...
you must be talking about a futuristic world with technology we have yet to discover. That technology would only be discovered in a Capitalistic society. (or at a minimum, orders of magnitude sooner)
|
The technology has already been discovered. The technology and resources are already available for creating robots to perform everyday jobs. The only thing stopping it happening in the immediate future is money. It costs to much to create these high tech robots. In a society without money, this problem doesn't arise.
|
The problem us you're looking at a world created with Capitalism, and all it's advantages, and thinking “if we were only socialistic, we could apply these things so much more efficiently”.
If we had that kind of world in the past, we would not have the technology.
To illustrate my point, let's say we did what you proposed, we turned the world into a place without money. We could then employ all the technologies we have learned to this point, and make a world better then we have today.
Fine, we do that. When that's done, in 200 years, we have roughly the same world.
What if we didn't do what you propose, and in 200 years due to continued advances in technologies, we have pills that cure cancer in the grocery store, and fission generators the size of a car that power cities.
Which world is better?
