Member 1535
22 entries
51097 views

 RSS
(M, 21)
AU
Immortal since Jan 24, 2008
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3
Interests: nanotech, religion, philosophy, language, morality, self-deceit, instinct, bigotry, dancing, loving, hating & chemistry. I'm not particularly well suited to small talk.
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • dragon’s favorites
    From shandora
    We Come In Peace
    From Reckon
    Switchgrass Bioplastics
    From Robokku
    Living the lives of...
    From Rourke
    An Appendix: Logos vs...
    From rene
    Virtual Bodies, Virtual...
    Recently commented on
    From BenRayfield
    Multiverse Branch Is...
    From dragon
    We're all little cogs
    From
    "Only the madman is...
    From dragon
    Distraction.
    From dragon
    untitled
    dragon’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From dragon's personal cargo

    We're all little cogs
    Unconsciously building our demise. With money becoming so important, and its uses so often worthless, we care only for our own survival. Dependent on a system that is designed to crash.

    With money removed from the picture, we'd still have all the tools and resources that exist now. All the means to achieve things, all the people capable of doing them, but not all of them will be so willing to cooperate.

    Do we really need it? The selfishness? Can we share?

    If we openly consider all human beings on earth physically, like Dr. Gunther, we find how strikingly similar we all are. I don't think it's a far stretch to suggest there is similar correlations to mental states. Of course they differ extensively, it is seemingly the point of many to show just how different they are, but I think most of us agree that lasting peace and happiness would be pretty sweet.

    But I digress. We are all little cogs, that make this world the way it is. Our actions and inactions determine its future. Our little, yeah doesn't matter someone else will clean it up, has to fucking stop. If we don't take control of this motherfucker soon them idiots in power will RUN US ALL INTO THE GROUND. If we're going to live for ourselves it's important to work together, not against each other, money forces competition instead of cooperation. We don't need to preserve a hierarchy, we're all capable of living comfortably with the technologies we've created. We just need to share, work together, and build a better future for ourselves. Not the profit crazed cronies and mindless politicians. Help everyone to help yourself. Fuck, is it really that hard?

    Sure some things will inevitably grow to a halt. Things you need shitloads of money for, like war. For a while services will be disrupted, but someone will get them going, and someone will bring them a pie at lunch time. Maybe. There is also the inclination to get on board with the ark. Ride this slow wave of decline and degradation, watch what happens when countries start putting the squeeze on each other. If everyone only wants profit, and people capable of it pursue it, often with little respect for the long-range consequences, yum yum. It's happening, and we can see it everyday. The cracks starting to appear in the lives we've been living, the indiscretions of others, all the while we must keep our heads down.

    Everyone is just living their life. They want it to be as good as possible. I think we can work together. We needn't even get rid of all the money, just use it wisely and let the self-important's sit on their pedestal. I wonder how many crimes could be avoided if we did do away with it though. Instead of stealing to eat, you would just have to ask. We would have to repair some shit, and we would need discussion, leadership, perhaps even authority, but we've already got all the tools and resources we need. How much fun could it be?

    [part of a larger essay i'm composing for a book, first draft]

    Sun, Dec 19, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    4 comments
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    BenRayfield     Sun, Dec 19, 2010  Permanent link
    Are you confusing money with the things built on top of that system? Most of those problems would be solved by getting rid of the Intellectual Property system (patents, copyrights, etc). That's how they control the infrastructure. They patent the ways its built and its parts, so when a group of people has a problem that they could solve with a factory, for example, they're not allowed to build it without permission from someone who cares more about getting their money than if they die or not from not having the factory to solve their problems. For example, there are lots of vaccines that could be made in such factories.

    I agree money is a badly designed system, but there are much worse systems built on top of it which could be ended separately. After ending those systems, we could see if money is worth keeping or not.

    Also, you would be more convincing by listing examples of things that work well without money. Wikipedia is (I read) the 5th most popular website and is funded only by donations and people who write on it for free. Open-source software is now around equally advanced as software made by businesses with ways to control how you use it and to regulate it based on your payments. Some open-source licenses make it practical to sell to businesses who build software with it and give it to everyone else for free, so 99% of everyone gets it for free and 1% pays, the 1% that is making the most money from it. Most open-source software is not connected to money in any way. It exists because someone wanted their computer to do that.

    If you want to get rid of the money system, include in your book the detailed patterns of things that work without money, why they started, what keeps them going and getting bigger, and what we can do to continue that pattern.
    dragon     Mon, Dec 20, 2010  Permanent link
    It is not really that sort of book, it's a work of fiction, based on some extremist points of view, but I definitely hear what you're saying and it will be important for me to strap those points of view to seemingly believable characters. For that purpose the personal examination of relevant examples in correlation to the 'revolutionary text' will be useful to convince readers of their understanding and allegiances.

    I guess the essence of my thought pattern was with you - on its own money is just a tool - it has been used in a manner that favors the accumulation of wealth. If the systems built on top of it were not profitable to the humans involved but only in terms of money then they fall down. The problem is that currently so much of this stupid tool is in the hands of just a few people, who given that fact can convince or enslave a much larger group of people to keep in line with their continued accumulation of wealth. By whatever system it is that they have created to do so.

    The POV of the essay's author is to burn everything down and see what remains, what rebuilds itself.

    So if we think about something as basic as electricity for the people. Something 'everyone' needs. Why isn't it free for all of us?
    BenRayfield     Wed, Dec 22, 2010  Permanent link
    Here's an idea for the book that will let you make your point most efficiently and interestingly. There are 2 groups that each have something the other needs to survive. 1 group is us, doing almost everything as a result of money. The other has never had anything like money in their society, not in a communist way where government controls what money would have controlled, but in a peer-to-peer way instead of a hierarchy way of organizing society (That's what I expect our society to become, but we need people like you to write books and do other things to make it happen). Each group has lived that way for as long as they can remember and on average has no desire to change to the opposite (money or no money). The correct trade is obvious, an equal amount of each thing from each group goes to the other, and each gets what they need to survive. But in negotiating the details of the trade, that simple thing becomes extremely complicated. Some in each group decided they like the other way better, and each group changes toward its opposite some, which goes the wrong way as fast changes in society usually do. Insane things continue to happen on each side. Protesting on the streets. Burning piles of money. Using toilet paper as a new form of money when there was none to start with. Maybe a war starts. All from the different ways of organizing society interfering with what should have been a simple trade between the 2 groups. To make your point, write about what happens when some of the members of both groups leave and create a combined society together, with parts from each. Shortly after that gets going and is working well, write a little about how the original 2 groups (not including the new group made of some of each) continue to get worse and work toward their own destruction as a result of being closed minded and staying with how things were always done. Then maybe the new group finds the solution to those problems. Or it could end with them destroying each other just after it appears the problems are starting to be solved.

    Do you think that would be a good way to explain the problems with money etc?
    dragon     Wed, Dec 22, 2010  Permanent link
    That is an interesting way to approach the topic, what you have presented is another book in its own right. Or several. I might use it as an allegory, part of a discussion between a couple of characters, in fact I've got the scene that I could integrate it to. Called, "Jane speaks with the Tea Master" Frankly I've been a little unfair with you and the rest of the community, most of the book already exists within my head, I'm just trying to finish my first one before I get started committing it to paper. The basis is an essay or set thereof, presenting all the problems, solutions, and existential musings of our current world and individual predicaments (obviously with a high degree of ambiguity). This appears in quotes usually at the beginning of sections and chapters, when characters will behave in a way somewhat related to the proceeding philosophical wank. Coupled with plenty of sparsely interacting characters it is a tried and tested format, where I attempt to show off both the genius and utter fallacies of such thought from different perspectives, then let the audience make up their own mind.

    Thanks a bunch dude :)
     
          Cancel