The Future of Money: None

[Castout]

I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back. That it is obsolete.

People are encouraged to be bad and not to prove himself in a money-based world.

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good. It is fear that makes them do otherwise. Fear begets insecurity which begets hate, hate begets violence which begets violence and more fear.

This is why so few people reach Maslow's transcendence level. In corporations, the highest attainment of mankind isn't even acknowledged.

To realize that the highest attainment of mankind has NO place in a society speaks volumes on just how perverse our society has become.

[Von Due]

I wouldn't say humans are more inclined to do good. Stability, status quo, certainty, predictability, I would say, are more fundamental keywords, even if this stability, status quo and predictability means our own downfall.

As for "us" in my first post, I don't mean you and me but the species as a whole, humanity in its entirety. What I was saying was, the moneyless global society will never ever happen again. It was moneyless but that's more than at least 6000 years ago, before the first city states, probably much longer. That humans can be bothered to work for no money, the first few 100,000s of years before Ur and Babylon tell us loud and clear. They worked for the stability, certainty, survival and passing of genes. It's only when we attempt to apply our modern rules to the ancient game that we get absurdities.

[Skybird]

I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid. Its not as if money has been "invented" by man just for fun or boredom. Mone yis neither a tool of evil wickedness, nor is it just a creation of random chance. From science, technology, physics, biology, we learn that function dictates form. Have a form that fails, and the fuction cannot be met.

You can leave it to just imagining you were not hungry, but nevertheless: you still need to eat at times. If you don't, you starve - even when you hold out and still imagine that you are not hungry and that eating is not necessary.

Its currently en vogue a bit to declare money obsolete since there are so many debts and some states already have started to collapse under their economic mismanagement in the past decades. The debts should be made disappearing by declaring money as obsolete. Others try to fight the debts by wanting to force people to chnage the format of money from paper snippets they cna carry out of reahc by the ECB and the government, to a digital format that makes it impossible to evade plundering and stealing by the state (not even mentioning the lacking security against ordinary hacking criminals). Lst century they waged war on a gold-standard for money, to weasel around state spendings that could not be paid for (Vietnam). Now they wage war against the result fo that: the "paper-standard".

There are so many insane follies en vogue today. Genderism. Cultural non-identity. Unlimited relativism. Money-lessness. To me it all shows how far beyond our cultural climax we already are.

The real problem with money and the need to earn it is that we still stick to a model of sopciety wherte earning money is a must in order tomake your living, but many jobs get lost to automatization or shifti89ng them to other contionents, so that there are lesser opportunities for the crowd to earn money with jobs of lower qualification. That we import migrants as crazy currently, also has a problem, a dimension that maybe is more relevant than the strawman argument that demographic developments and shrinkign, overaging societies must be compensated for (if jobs get lost, we maybe should expect to be better off in the future if less people actually need to to look for job). That has somethign to do with the fact that there is far more state bonds, than there are stock holdings. And somebody must buy these ever inflating ammounts of worthless state bonds, else they canot maintain the illusion of that states mantain their spending on sustainbable levels. And so people get imported additonally to serve as biond-buyers, if not as "investors" then at least as insurred emplyes whose pensions and insurrance secfurities to dominant lewvels base of fonds that are forced by the state cartel to base on buiynf state bonds.

As I said earlier, our money system is totally corrupted and rotten. That does not mean that the function of money is not necessary. It only means that we have abused it. The status quo is no argument against the token named "money", it only is an argument against the crowd allowing political elites to abuse the system and make their living and fame by damaging the system of money, since decades. Which, in the end and if ulook close enough at it, is an argument against today'S understanding of state - and democracy - itself. Individualism and collectivism are antagonists, and their conflicting natures do not get settled by reason and rational argment, but simply by raw force and its implementation according to the law of the strongest.

Now there you would have a point worth to go after, where you would have my support. But being against money? That is like wanting to end wars by being against knives.

P.S. For a brief overview on how money came into the world, why it is needed, what it does and why they try to de3stroy good money, there still is this marvellous and brief introduction by M. Rothbard: What has government done to our money, that explains the historic origin and the modern times in a fashion easy to understand, and brief. It can be legally downloaded for free here: L-I-N-K

Should be mandatory read in schools' higher classes.

[Castout]

@Skybird: I'm not demonizing any opinion. Just speaking my mind.

@ Von Due: Yeah I know you didn't mean you and me. If you read developmental psychology you will understand human nature. We are inclined to do good and to reciprocate good with good.

I tend to think moneyless society is the future.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

@Skybird: I'm not demonizing any opinion. Just speaking my mind.

You said: "I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back."

I replied: "Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and technical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid."

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good.

Says who...?

It starts with changing standards that decidce what is seen to be good and bad. It ends with the fact that you are heading for a frontal head-on crash with empiry over your claim. Imagine you were talking to some IS dude.

A Buddhist would say the one thing all people have in common is that we all try to gain what makes us happy or gives us satisfaction of any kind, and that we want to avoid aversive stimuli.

A dentist drilling my tooth's hole, is an aversive stimuli.

The boy whose family always fought for survival, may find happiness in collecting ever more gold and wealth and even betray others for that, and steal and plunder.

Where is your goodness now? Your evil? You have to look deeper, beyond the shallow surface of what is just terminology.

Buddha also was asked how many people in his opinion spend their lives in a valuable fashion. He picked some dirt from under one of his fingernails and said: "compared to all dirt on all beaches of the world, not more than this."

Man is an animal that has an inbuild feature called instinct/drive for survival. This can - and often does - lead man to act egopist and selfishly. THAT is natural, and part of human nature. The discussion amongst philosphers whether or not even altruism in itself is a form of egoism, is old and does not really seem to lead anywhere. Being altruistic, may give you rewards that are egoistic in themselves. What means that for the altruism in the beginning? Can altruism even exist?

Most people do what serves their interests best. That simple and obvious it is. If they only would follow the golden rule, already very much would be won.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You said: "I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back."

I replied: "Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and technical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid."

Says who...?

It starts with changing standards that decidce what is seen to be good and bad. It ends with the fact that you are heading for a frontal head-on crash with empiry over your claim. Imagine you were talking to some IS dude.

A Buddhist would say the one thing all people have in common is that we all try to gain what makes us happy or gives us satisfaction of any kind, and that we want to avoid aversive stimuli.

A dentist drilling my tooth's hole, is an aversive stimuli.

The boy whose family always fought for survival, may find happiness in collecting ever gold and wealth and even betray others for that.

Where is your goodnessnow? Your evil? You have to look deeper, beyond the shallow service of what is just terminology.

Buddha also was asked how many people in his opinion spend their lives in a valuable fashion. He picked some dirt from under one of his fingernails and said: "compared to all dirt on all beaches of the world, not more than this."

Man is an animal that has an inbuild feature called instinct/drive for survival. This can - and often does - lead man to act egopist and selfishly. THAT is natural, and part of human nature. The discussion amongst philosphers whether or not even altruism in itself is a form of egoism, is old and does not really seem to lead anywhere.

Most people do what serves their interests best. That simple and obvious it is. If they only would follow the golden rule, already very much would be won.

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

I will say no more.

Man is inclined to do good as testified by our babies who exhibit natural inclination for collaboration and sharing without being taught anything. If men were inclined to do evil then our laws and constitutions would reflect that. Everyone finds murder unacceptable. Everyone finds rape unacceptable. Everyone finds lying unacceptable. We have evolved to do good and to be good simply because we are social creatures. A selfish man has no place in a natural society. A natural society takes care of its weak and impoverished.

Evil is not a terminology. It is a philosophy of life that puts the self over all other things. It's a philosophy of the fearful.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

Every political election tells me the opposite.

You can want to adress pragmatic reality by metaphysics, if you want. Maybe that is even noble to want, or not, I don't know.

But I live in this world laid out before my eyes, and just wishing does not get anyone anywhere in it. The acchieved completion of the deed is what counts. And thus, a strong sense for realism is of the essence, as is practical knowlege and competent skill.

BTW, I once was engaged for many years in social projects, in counseling and treatment, and teaching meditation, and I did it for free. I worked as a free teacher, as family counselor in unregular church community work (Yes, i know the irony: atheist me, and the church. Call it pragmatism from both sides), I even helped pout in tgraumata treatment for people from the Balkan war. But then somethign happened that changed my attitude on free aid. I realised that people took it for granted that a.) they got these "services", and b.) that they got them for free. They thought they had a natural claim for it, and their claims grew. Tjheir dependency, so they often thought, gave them claim, gave the rights over me and others. Their needs - are our commands...? That I took queer, especially when it were people from Germany, having lived in quite stable, secure and reasonably comfortable situations, materially.

Short time later I cancelled my last such personal engagement, and since then insist on getting paid for any work or help I should do for somebody not being a friend or family member. There aint no such thing as a free lunch, my friend. You want something of value from me? You give me something of equal value for me in return, or have soembody else paying me. Reciprocity. Can be linked direcly, or indirectly - but free lunches I do no longer provide. Stuff must cost. Services must cost. If somebody wants me to aid somebody else who cannot afford it - let the first somebody pay me then.

I do not need the money, I could afford to pick up these social and wellfare activities again and do them unpaid. But I do not want. Not wanting is possible.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Every political election tells me the opposite.

Yeah, agree.

It's just one big shame. God decides to sleep and have a dream and while dreaming He's forced to toil for much of the rest of his dream for money. The purpose of dreaming in the first place, to experience being is thus lost to making money. Humanity has created a somewhat nightmarish dream for God unless God dreams of becoming a human billionaire.

Perhaps God has a better dreaming in ET intelligent life and some of the unseen.

Perhaps this rather bad dreaming of becoming man ought to be ended sooner than later so God won't have worse dreams.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

If men were inclined to do evil then our laws and constitutions would reflect that.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
-James Madison, Federalist #51.

Everyone finds murder unacceptable. Everyone finds rape unacceptable. Everyone finds lying unacceptable.

Except the murderer. Except the rapist. Except the liar. People justify their evil by calling it good. Anything is acceptable if it promotes a further good. At least that is the justification.

We have evolved to do good and to be good simply because we are social creatures. A selfish man has no place in a natural society. A natural society takes care of its weak and impoverished.

All men are inherently selfish. It comes from having to live inside our own heads. Those who recognize that others are the same as themselves are able to work together, recognizing that what benefits others benefits ourselves. The sociopath, the person who cannot recognize that others are the same as himself, is incapable of seeing the benefit of helping others, so he acts as if only he matters. Unfortunately, all of us suffer from this to some degree or another, and so we work for our own benefit. If the way to that end is to help others, then we do so.

Evil is not a terminology. It is a philosophy of life that puts the self over all other things. It's a philosophy of the fearful.

Evil is harming other people unnecessarily. We can try to avoid that, but to one degree or another it is a part of all of us. We don't do good automatically, but because we recognize the benefit to ourselves in doing so.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Too much surreal idealism there, and no sense of realism.

This, exactly.

Originally Posted by Castout

I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back. That it is obsolete.

People are encouraged to be bad and not to prove himself in a money-based world.

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good.

Haha, no...

Skybird is right, surreal idealism describes what you said perfectly.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid.

Well said!

[Jimbuna]

Any future changes will be a long way off should they ever even come about, so in the meantime I'm happy with what money I have and will continue to enjoy until my dying day.

Selfish rant over.