Taking money out of the picture would also take bills out of the picture. And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now, the only difference is it would be harder for individuals to be the sole coordinator. Money, and who has it, is our current central organizer and will continue to burn the planet if we fail to take away its power.
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here’s a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
The huge claim is the present tense, “has the ability”. It’s not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn’t the claim. Humanity has a long road before that’s possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An “ability” is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An “ability” involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. “energy credits”), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no “ability”, merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don’t find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn’t really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it’s possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
I think it’s possible for humanity to coordinate without money.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We’re not there yet, and you can’t just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that’s a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can’t outlaw money tomorrow.
Words are how we communicate ideas, and words are messy and can mean different things in different cultures and contexts (and a lot of times people use them incorrectly). Semantics matter in science and academia when you’re trying to be precise for the historical record so things don’t get misinterpreted by people who usually don’t have the ability to ask you what you mean by “has the ability” or “humanity”. A very broad statement I might add. Too broad of a statement for most academic literature.
An early step in the process of ending our reliance on money is broadly accepting that it isn’t a necessity. I never claimed that that kind of global shift would happen overnight, and I don’t find it useful to use that kind of prescription to undermine the concept unless your goal is solely to undermine the concept.
Semantics matter in every attempt at communicating information.
If I say humans “have the ability to fly”, it is important to specify that I mean they have the potential to secure the means to fly, not that they can actually fly themselves. That difference in meaning is the difference between a person booking a flight, and jumping off a roof to their surprised death.
A much more important early step is securing an alternative to money. Money is not really the problem, it’s just a framework for resource allocation. Any other framework is going to have its own vulnerabilities, like the administrative corruption in central planning, or the kludginess of barter, or the social loafing of spontaneous cooperation. And none of those alternative frameworks prevent unofficial currencies from popping up.
Ignoring these issues doesn’t make them go away, and wanting to address them at the outset does not undermine the concept, any more than acknowledging that humans cannot naturally fly undermines the development of aircraft.
Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says “humans have the ability to fly” and proceeds to jump off a building, that’s on them. Doesn’t change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don’t involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn’t think that were eventually proven wrong.
Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.
But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.
Taking money out of the picture would also take bills out of the picture. And humanity absolutely has the ability to coordinate action without money at least as well (if not better) than how it is now, the only difference is it would be harder for individuals to be the sole coordinator. Money, and who has it, is our current central organizer and will continue to burn the planet if we fail to take away its power.
That’s a huge claim, you need to support that.
Not that huge of a claim, especially when now is so chaotic and dysfunctional. Here’s a nonexhaustive list of moneyless economies (obviously with varying degrees of feasibility)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-monetary_economy
~edit: wording~
The huge claim is the present tense, “has the ability”. It’s not a huge claim to say that humanity has the potential to one day transcend money, but that wasn’t the claim. Humanity has a long road before that’s possible, it does not presently have the ability to continue to function if we just snapped our fingers tomorrow and eliminated money.
An “ability” is not a vague notion bolstered by historical curiosities. An “ability” involves a detailed, immediately actionable plan that can be implemented in the modern economic landscape without destroying crucial productivity.
Resources have to be allocated. People need to accept the resource allocation method in order to contribute their labor to do things that must be done. Money is an imperfect solution. Eliminating money leads to reinventing it (e.g. “energy credits”), reverting to less efficient models (e.g. barter), developing a central planning body that replaces wealth corruption with administrative corruption, or widespread social loafing where nothing gets done.
Without an actual plan of implementation that gains the trust of the workers, there is no “ability”, merely aspiration.
I disagree with a few points you bring up, but beyond those, it sounds like your biggest problem with my statement is in the semantics. I don’t find that to be very useful when obviously the logistics of such a system are complicated enough to warrant a whole doctorate degree. Comments on social media between strangers with no verifiable education isn’t really the place to harp on precise wording and definitions. I think it’s possible for humanity to coordinate without money. Is that better? Or do you still disagree?
Semantics are how we communicate ideas. If you change the semantic content, you change the idea.
Depends on what you mean by possible. At some point in the remote future? Sure, I agree. At the present time? I disagree. We’re not there yet, and you can’t just snap your fingers and change the fundamental beliefs, and logistics administration, of 8 billion people overnight. Best case scenario that’s a multi-generational endeavor.
We can get there one day, we can’t outlaw money tomorrow.
Words are how we communicate ideas, and words are messy and can mean different things in different cultures and contexts (and a lot of times people use them incorrectly). Semantics matter in science and academia when you’re trying to be precise for the historical record so things don’t get misinterpreted by people who usually don’t have the ability to ask you what you mean by “has the ability” or “humanity”. A very broad statement I might add. Too broad of a statement for most academic literature.
An early step in the process of ending our reliance on money is broadly accepting that it isn’t a necessity. I never claimed that that kind of global shift would happen overnight, and I don’t find it useful to use that kind of prescription to undermine the concept unless your goal is solely to undermine the concept.
Semantics matter in every attempt at communicating information.
If I say humans “have the ability to fly”, it is important to specify that I mean they have the potential to secure the means to fly, not that they can actually fly themselves. That difference in meaning is the difference between a person booking a flight, and jumping off a roof to their surprised death.
A much more important early step is securing an alternative to money. Money is not really the problem, it’s just a framework for resource allocation. Any other framework is going to have its own vulnerabilities, like the administrative corruption in central planning, or the kludginess of barter, or the social loafing of spontaneous cooperation. And none of those alternative frameworks prevent unofficial currencies from popping up.
Ignoring these issues doesn’t make them go away, and wanting to address them at the outset does not undermine the concept, any more than acknowledging that humans cannot naturally fly undermines the development of aircraft.
Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says “humans have the ability to fly” and proceeds to jump off a building, that’s on them. Doesn’t change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don’t involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn’t think that were eventually proven wrong.
Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.
But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.