You do not have a "right" to food.
You do not have a "right" to clean water.
You do not have a "right" to housing.

These things are not 'rights'. The world owes you nothing.

But in a benevolent society, they could be provided for all. It's not compulsory. But it might just make society function a lot better.

If everyone had the basics; clean water, food, housing, provided for them by society, and everything else, above that, was left to trade, we may find that the benefits far outweigh the cost.

Once people have these basics, it shifts the priorities of life. If you don't have to work, you will only do work that you choose. Pointless jobs disappear. Petty crime reduces.

With people focused only on creative, technical, scientific, humanitarian, and business pursuits, imagine the explosion of value on society with everyone focusing on pushing society forward - and having the means to do it because they are not held back by the shackles of a pointless job.

It's funny how we already supply education, and in some countries, healthcare, for the same reason of improving the quality of society, yet we don't supply the basics. In a world where unemployment grows every day due to automation and increasing technology, this seems like the only way forward.

Australia's carbon tax is a highly divisive issue. Of course the free enterprise system has failed to regulate itself adequately, after all, why would it? It's supposed to be "free"! So it has been left to irresponsible action for too long, and time is short. But authority is an ineffective way of solving problems.

We have to appreciate that we are part of a global economy. While some might argue the merits of "leading by example", the truth is that profit will always drive the motivation. In this global economy, putting restrictions on one country gives that single country an unfair disadvantage in the market. Herein lies a fundamental problem with the tax:

Those given the advantage by this restriction have an incentive to contravene the restriction.

In other words, putting a carbon tax on one country actually allows, no, motivates, other countries to create more carbon! They would actually be more competitive if their industry was one in which polluting practices were cheaper than cleaner methods. This would allow them to undercut countries with a carbon tax, increasing their production and therefore their pollution.

Then to compound matters, the Australian economy ends up with an Australian company going out of business while, for example, a heavily polluting foreign company now takes on even more production as a result of increased market share.

This is a basic principle of capitalism. If other countries can get away with using carbon and using it saves them money or time, it is their competitive imperative to do so.

A non-global carbon tax could, at least theoretically, make the situation worse. A better, more natural alternative might have been for consumers to be given transparency of a company's carbon emissions so that they can chose to consume "ethically", putting irresponsible carbon producers out of business. But even this option is driven by money, a very small percentage of people are "ethical" consumers unless the ethical option is cheaper.

Unfortunately it appears it is too late for a consumer driven approach and our desperation forces us to impose this flawed restriction.

The only choice we have now is to hope that the buying habits of Australia favour the climate taxed Australian market. But in a "free" market, it's not reasonable to expect people to choose to pay more.

Maybe there will have to be a law forcing people to buy from low-carbon companies...

I recently read “The Lights in the Tunnel” by Martin Ford.

The book explores the implications of the increasing automation of labor. It begins by visualizing the world economy, and how it will change as automation increasingly eliminates labor. Many commonly held beliefs are dispelled throughout the book with convincing logic and some unquestionable evidence. This is not something we can afford to ignore. Even without the current rapid advances in technology or full artificial general intelligence, automation appears to be an absolute inevitability.


The Reality of Automation
This is not science fiction. Far-off notions of intelligent androids performing our every wish are the least of our worries. Automation is set to displace workers in many areas with little advance in technology. Much of this displacement is simply a question of design. With profit as the incentive, it is only a matter of time.

You might also be reassured by the belief that "Robots can't do everything", and that until the day they take all the jobs, or perhaps just your job, you don't have to worry about it. Wrong. The entire system of consumerism depends on the majority having jobs. There is in fact a tipping point, a point where there are not enough people earning an income to sustain our current system.


The Tipping Point
With no buyers, there can be no sellers. The lack of consumer confidence will result in less demand and businesses will be less likely to take on more staff. The economy will embark on a downward spiral of unemployment.

This, of course, is not just a problem for the average worker, but for the rich elite, who will no longer have a market from which to make their fortune. Not only will less workers be bad for the economy, but with the massive drop in income tax revenues, even public services are set to be hit hard by the coming unemployment tsunami.

Nobody will be safe. Even cheap labor jobs in countries such as India and China cannot sustain their level of growth once automation hits a critical mass, partly because they rely on Western prosperity in the first place, but also because their jobs will also be subject to automation, both at home and back in developed countries.

Then there is the misconception of the "Luddite Fallacy", the belief that the economy will always create new jobs, and advancing technology will continue to create new industries for displaced workers.

Martin Ford's argument is that accelerating automation technology will ultimately invade many of the industries that have traditionally been labor intensive. He also argues that any new industries that are created by these advances are unlikely to be labor intensive, focusing more on capital (take Google's extremely low staff number compared with its income as a prime example).


Therefore, our fate is sealed - and the idea that every person must "earn their living by the sweat of their brow" is all but obsolete. Ironically, it is capitalism that has led us to this transition.

$lavery
There was an interesting point made in the book: This concept of "free labor" has happened before.

The slave trade in America was active for over 200 years. It made slave owners rich beyond their dreams, while poorer whites, unable to compete against free labor, lived in abject poverty. So how did it continue for 200 years, with so much poverty? Well, the slave colonies relied on exports. There was a constant flow of new money from overseas.

A system that depends on external resources can only increase its prosperity as long as the external resources continue. Today, we function under the illusion of separate countries trading with each other, but in essence, the whole world is the market, so really there is nobody to export to. Growth in this case can only come from inside the system - from more resources, including labor.

Today, we are the slaves. Although we are paid, our money is simply to drive the system of consumption. It is what allows the producers to grow. At first, this sounds like a good thing. Essentially, the corporations provide us with value. The problem becomes apparent when we realize that the system relies on us as much as we rely on it. The labor of the working classes feeds this system. This is why we are, in effect, forced to work.

We need to consume to live, but to consume, we must work. This system, where producers are also the consumers, relies on itself to function. Production drives consumption and consumption drives production. Break this cycle and the system cannot continue.


A World Without Jobs
Our automated future will decouple production from consumption. Things will still be produced, but there will be no way of affording it, because we won't have jobs. How can we have production if there is nobody to consume?

Martin Ford's solution is an overwhelming "Robin Hood" style government welfare system that taxes producers to allow the consumers to continue consuming. He says that even the most hardcore libertarian will have to agree to this, as without it, there will be no market to which any business can sell its goods.

He explains his way out of most of the other objections you probably have about this. There would still be incentives for people to do good for society for example, and capitalism would still reward those who become the best producers. However, I believe that many of the problems of capitalism (relentless growth, inherently aberrant behavior, destructive affluence etc) are still not addressed in his suggested solutions.

Additionally, his argument is based on the assumptions that consumption is necessary for growth, and that growth is necessary for progress. This is a very narrow view. To believe that consumption is a necessary factor in progress is an assumption with little grounding, and growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer.

Regardless of Martin Ford's suggestions, we cannot ignore the most pressing implication of the decoupling of labor from the production/consumption cycle. That is, the elimination of the assumption that everyone must work.

This is obviously a profound concept. Without a job, how can one survive? If not everyone has to work, why should anyone? It wouldn't be fair if some people went to work and some didn't.

I have thought long and hard about this concept, the implications on society, possible compromises and solutions. It's not an easy thing to get your head around.

Luckily, the world is changing, and changing fast. As a result, we are seeing more and more possibilities, game changers, emerging ideas. The Internet is opening up entirely new landscapes of economic paradigms. Movements are forming that no longer participate in the current economic system. Technology is enabling people to manipulate the system to their own ends. Some have suggested the eradication of money altogether.

The movement towards a new system, a system where producers and consumers are no longer the same thing, where jobs are no longer obligatory, is already in progress. The question is, how are you going to cope with the transition?

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."

If you haven't seen this movie, you might want to stop reading as this blog will contain spoilers. Suffice to say that if you want to see an extreme example of dystopia created by the monetary system, you should watch it.

In the film, we see extreme examples of what commercialism could turn into. TV screens, clothes, and even courtrooms are plastered with advertisements. The population is dumbed down to the extreme with puerile products and services. And all of society revolves around advertising and making money.

We see a satirical take on the corporations' incentive to destroy anything that stands in their path. Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator replaces water in our pipelines, ruining the world's crops. This could be paralleled with the destruction of a lot of the public transport infrastructure in the US by the large automobile companies, and other infrastructure takeovers such as the television and electricity networks.

In this dystopian future, if you don't have any money, you are put into prison. We're not far off that already. Try telling the tax office that you didn't earn anything this year. They will want to know how you've been able to live without money. Self sufficiency does not exist in their eyes.We must be hiding something. And of course, if we don't pay tax, we are not on their system. We must all be subject to the government databases in some way.

The film also looks at the implementation of barcoding everyone. If you have no barcode tattooed onto your forearm, you are deemed "unscannable", and arrested. Then, this barcode is needed for pretty much everything. It stores a record of your monetary worth so you are unable to spend money without it. You will find it impossible to use public facilities, as they all require this barcode for participation. This allows all your activities to be recorded.

We see that this barcode can be spotted by various scanners around the city, completely obliterating your privacy. I'm sure in reality, RFID would be used instead of barcodes, removing the need for scanners and allowing your location to be tracked no matter how hard you tried to hide your arm.

The film also explores what happens when automation goes wrong, and demonstrates the danger of relying too much on it. We should take notice of this speculation, because while under the influence of the monetary system, all motives and incentives are corrupted, stopping any system working how it should. Automation in the monetary system is to save money. In any other economy, it would be to save labour. We must think about the implications of this carefully, and ensure it doesn't fall into the same problems as it does in this film.

While promoted as a comedy, the dystopian future set out in Idiocracy is too frighteningly real to ignore.

In their 1863 letter to fellow financial power brokers, the Rothschild Brothers of London wrote that the few people who understand the financial system are either so caught up in its profits or so dependent on the lifestyle they enjoy from it that they won’t do anything to change it. Then they said that the rest of the people aren’t even aware of how the system works, so they’ll continue to labour as if this were the only option, “spending their lives in virtual enslavement to us while we reap the benefits”.

While many ignorantly cling to the dying remnants of their middle class existence, the rest of the world has already descended into a new age of hell. Poverty, authoritarianism, social breakdown and environmental destruction is rampant as greed takes its toll on our once hopeful civilisation.

The banking system is out of control. Fiat currency is systematically destroying our society. The government does the bidding of the highest bidder. There is no doubt that there is a drastic need to create a better world from the ground up.

So despite having no alternatives, thousands take to the streets in various "Occupy" events all over the world to protest. Their main goal, perhaps to raise awareness. But apart from that, it's all a bit vague. There is just a burning desire, or rather necessity, to change things.

So far, not much has come of it. If anything, the powers-that-be seem to be winning on points, having successfully beaten and abused hundreds of protesters as well as berating the movement in the mainstream media.

While the movement is gaining momentum as well as direction, I remain reserved about its ability to make a difference. Protesting has no doubt been successful in the past, but it was only attempting to change aspects of the game; women's rights, workers' rights, taxes here and there, maybe the occasional law. But this time it is different.

This time the protests are attempting to change the game itself.

For the elite "1%", this is not an option.

The problem is that protesting is a game that they are very good at. Protesting is playing into their hands, they can legally and literally fight back with more fire power, technology, and other resources than any number of protesters could facilitate. It is a war out there, and war is their favourite game.

Rather than fighting them on their own turf, the way to beat them is to attack them on our terms. The real protests happen in our own homes, and in our every day actions.

Their power comes from our compliance. Without us they are nothing. Without the value that we place on money, they have no wealth. Without our labour, nothing happens. And without our consent, their authority means nothing.

Take your money out of the bank and put it in a cooperative or credit union. Pay off your debts. Stop watching mainstream news. Drastically reduce your consumption. Work on your self sufficiency.

Most importantly, get others to do the same. Form communities and help each other. Share.

Many naysayers are quick to say that those growing their own food etc will be prime targets if society collapses. But this is only assuming that society does collapse. As long as "life goes on", we need to do what we can to remove ourselves from their system. And by preparing now, one would hope that fewer of us will be reduced to robbing the self sufficient should the worst happen.

They currently have the power over us because they have a monopoly on our survival. Our way of life depends on the system remaining as it is. If we want to change the system, we have to change our way of life.

This is not about being selfish and only looking after yourself while the world descends into chaos. It is about becoming the change you want to see. The more of us that do this, the more power we take from the 1%.

So, I wish the Occupy movement all the luck in the world. But I will be at home, fighting on another front.

If there was ever an indication that the current capitalist system is fundamentally flawed, it would be the severe shortage of viable jobs in a world full of problems.

Jobs exist because a task needs to be done. But jobs are a drain on every enterprise, so they are avoided unless absolutely necessary. When they do exist, they are allocated the absolute minimum of funds for the enterprise to remain profitable. This alone makes jobs scarce but this scarcity is currently being exacerbated by increased automation and a move towards capital equipment. However, an even bigger threat to jobs is the fundamental mechanism of enterprise.

The measure of all enterprise is in financial output. While the benefit to the individual (the customer) might be important in order for a product to be desirable in the marketplace, the overall societal benefit is usually no more than a fortunate side effect. The priority for pharmaceutical companies is to sell as many drugs as possible, not to cure as many people as possible. In this and many other cases, societal benefit is actually detrimental to the company’s financial benefit.

The problem is that if there is no profit to be made, then the motivation for solving a problem is greatly reduced. While many endeavours are made outside of enterprise, such undertakings usually rely on the mechanism of “one way funding” – such as charity or government funding. Money and resources are poured into a black hole, while the benefits yielded are not directly related to the input. In a capitalist world, this mechanism is an abomination. In a community focussed society, it might be the only option.

Alternatively such organisations can rely on the bastardisation that is advertising for funding. Yet this is always detrimental to the product and is almost always completely irrelevant to the ambitions of the enterprise – often even causing a conflict of interests.

Distorted Values
Despite this obvious distortion of values, we continue with this broken system. How can we be proud of a society where someone processing invoices can earn a living, while a musician starves? Where a footballer lives in a mansion while a nurse strips to feed her children? Where a CEO earns a fortune for dismantling a company while the low paid workers, those who actually produce something, are left out on the street? This injustice can only arise from a distorted value system – and it will always remain as long as inequality is allowed.

The Danger of Forced Necessity
Despite the inequality, the necessity of employment for survival causes people to be very defensive about jobs. They believe working is their god-given right and watch out anyone who might try and take their job – especially if they believe that person has less of a right to a job than them – ie; they are an immigrant.

As unemployment rises, which it will due to technology and our reaching the limits of our resources, we can no longer continue the producer > consumer mechanism. Jobs cannot remain obligatory for survival. If nothing else – the economy itself will collapse! With no workers earning money, there will be nobody to buy the goods produced.

Yet this is of little concern to corporations who’s only concern is short term profit, nor to the out of work father. So this makes it extremely difficult to address the problems and discuss alternatives, but we have to. We can no longer afford to allow enterprise to be the driving force of progress.

We are signing our own death warrants by allowing our survival to be directly linked to our employment.

The Alternative
The bottom line is that people should not need jobs. This system where working is essential for survival causes impoverishment for those who cannot work. It also only creates jobs that are are based on profit, yet profit is not always directly associated with improving society.

We need a different kind of system, a system with three prerequisites.

• The basics of survival are provided for every individual – so work is not essential.


• The purpose of enterprise is to improve society, not create profit.


• Jobs do not impede enterprise, they empower it.

This system would create only satisfying jobs that are beneficial for society. There would be no pointless jobs because nobody would do them.

There is plenty of work to do to improve society. There are jobs for everyone, and they do not have to be imperative.

You might think it sounds impossible, ridiculous even, that we should have a system of only voluntary work.

But it is ridiculous that one can waste their life slaving in an office while millions starve.

Matter Evolution

Since the first particles were set in motion, every action has been part of a chain reaction.

At first, there were the simplest of elementary particles in an empty universe. Hydrogen atoms - single electron entities, were the pinnacle of complexity.

Eventually, a few of them collided, stuck together, and formed more complex atoms, and then molecules. Well, it was a little more complicated than that, but you get the idea. These molecules accumulated until there were so many that gravity and magnetism began to have a significant effect. As the gravity increased, the mass increased, and nuclear fusion commenced. Star systems were born.

The planets continued a sequence of their own. Eventually molecules increased in complexity by way of chemical reactions in order to form amino acids which then combined to create proteins.

These proteins and amino acids increased in complexity until living cells emerged from a random chemical process. I realise this step is a big debate, but it does seem to follow the natural flow of this theory.

Life started simple - with single cell organisms converting oxygen into energy.

Like everything before it, life increased in complexity as its requirement for survival drove it to trial different solutions to the problems it faced. Solving any problem always creates new, more complex problems. When the first animal came onto the land to find food, it had to develop solutions to deal with this new environment. So because of legs, lungs had to be developed. (Or vice versa?) Because of cars, roads and the Department of Motor Vehicles had to be developed.

Consciousness Evolution

After an unfathomably long time, something incredible happened. Life increased complexity so much that a brain able to comprehend its own existence was formed. This brain not only solved problems, as brains before it did, but it built upon ideas. It developed the same skills as nature itself, evolving ideas that increased the complexity of the universe. *These self acknowledging brains loosely described this phenomenon as consciousness, and these complexity-increasing ideas as technology.

Consciousness is a feedback to nature. For the first time in history, nature is no longer the main driver of complexity, the complexity itself is driving further evolution.

Now I'm not talking about transhumanism or notions of driving our own evolution to become more than human. I'm talking about the ability to create ideas. Ideas drive evolution. Like nature before it, the function of ideas developed by consciousness is to increase complexity. This evolves the course of the universe itself.

Ideas are created by combining previously existing concepts to solve a problem. These ideas then create new problems that need to be solved and so new ideas always add to the ever increasing complexity.

Evolution = increasing complexity, using ideas as the mechanism.

Evolution began as hydrogen atoms evolving into complex molecules. It is not restricted to the evolution of plants and animals. Charles Darwin's identification of the evolution of the species was just a very small part of a much bigger picture.

It's important to remember that this is still part of that original chain reaction. Evolution is the function of the universe itself.

I'll say that again. Evolution is the function of the universe itself. To appreciate this, try to acknowledge that the true definition of evolution is to increase complexity. That is all that has ever happened. From the increasing complexity of atoms to the development of life, the improvement of life and then the development of consciousness, the universe is just a complexity factory. That's what it does.

Our Purpose

What is profound about this is realising where we fit it into it all. We've often wondered what is the reason for living, and when you look at the big picture like this, it becomes obvious.

We are just here to continue the evolution of complexity.

Of course this is both empowering and humbling. It turns out that human beings could be pivotal to the evolution of the universe. Looking back at how the universe has evolved we can predict that we, (or another version of consciousness that will emerge if we create our own extinction), will contribute to the emergent complexity of the universe. Our ideas will evolve the complexity and will take the universe to the next level. Yet at the same time, we realise that we are simply a result of what the universe was doing anyway. We are not the 'pinnacle' of evolution, we are just 'where it's at now'. There is much more to come, and perhaps we are just an insignificant speck in the development of something much grander.

What if the development of consciousness is just an embryo of a super-brain and concepts such as individuality are simply mechanisms in its development? Kinda makes the humbling from Darwin and Copernicus seem like a mild slap. The ego of humanity takes yet another beating...

But even if this is the case, there's no need to feel down. Now we know our purpose, we know what to focus on. We have meaning and direction. We are here to drive complexity, by creating ideas which are solutions to problems.

Social Evolution

And there is more. Since we first started integrating concepts and evolving ideas, we have been part of something even more complex than our minds: Society. The hive-mind of ants or bees is one thing, but the hive mind of an entire planet of conscious, problem solving, dextrous human beings is quite another. Society adds yet another level of complexity to the evolution of the universe.

Society has only existed in any sort of complex form for a few thousand years, but until the birth of the internet, it was fragmented and relatively simple. Now, people have the potential to connect to any of seven billion others. Cultures merge. Belief systems collapse and form in seconds. Values shift and perceptions alter. More possibilities present themselves. When the internet exploded, our day-to-day functioning as a society hit the knee of an exponential curve in terms of complexity.

This is not to be feared. This is the destiny of evolution, the destiny of the universe. Yes, we will create ideas to temporarily simplify many concepts. But this is just so that we can then use this simplification as a step up to further complexity. Like a fractal. For example, Google simplified searching the internet, but in doing so empowered people to solve more complex problems than ever before, due to the ease of access to new concept-combinations.

It's no doubt that these are exciting times. Technology is advancing at a similar rate, enabling all sorts of new opportunities, problems and the ideas required to solve them. The more technology, the more ideas. The more ideas, the more complex society becomes. Even the power of our own brains is on the verge of improvement, adding to our ability to drive further complexity.

So immerse yourself. Ride the wave of nature and accept our destiny - the perpetuation of complexity.

The Corruption of Monetary Motivation

Everywhere I look I see the corruption caused by monetary motivation.

Where there is poverty or low incomes, people will do whatever they can to make a few bucks, whatever the human or social cost. And who can blame them, when their environment fosters survival-of-the-fittest self preservation? In many ways, poverty reflects how society has failed to evolve far from its animal origins.

Where people have comfortable incomes, you will find apathy in abundance. People are so enslaved by the treadmill of ever increasing work and consumption they remain oblivious to the world outside their bubbles — a world of nature, real social interaction, better health, abundant free-time, and the possibility of a better society. Mind destroying TV and pitiful politics keep them entertained in so called comfort.

Where there is wealth, you're almost certain to find selfish affluence, inefficiency and irresponsible waste.

In business itself, we see corrupt practices such as planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity — behavior that has no place in a rational, civilized society.

The ever growing gap between the super rich and the life-threatened poor only serves to further illustrate the intrepid failings of the capitalist system. The stagnation of the middle class would also be adequate confirmation, were they not all hypnotized by the latest X-Factor.

Yet nothing really compares with the corruptions that span all spectra of wealth. The underlying motivations of everyone and every entity are such that our realities are corrupted by selfishness, inefficiency, and a disrespect for anything but money.

Capitalism has advanced society tremendously — assisting technology (where there is monetary gain), driving progress, and improving the quality of life for most of the west. However, aside from the obvious problems (which I touched on above), over the last decade or two, capitalism has become subject to a catastrophic imbalance that undermines most of its social benefits.

Socialists, arguing (quite justifiably) that equality is better, will never win their argument against capitalists whose very own livelihoods are being scalped by lazy good-for-nothings. Capitalism is, at its essence, a fair system, aligning wealth with effort. At least, that is the idea.

So now we now have a stand off - a passionate war of words between Libertarians, Objectivists, Marxists, Socialists, and everything in between. Yet all these political ideologies are based around money and this primitive system of exchange that we cling to so desperately.

All I see, are too many absolutes. The Future of Money will be complex. There are aspects of every system that have failed, there is nothing to say that any system would fail if certain adjustments were made. We should be more flexible, more open to suggestions that may go against the underlying aspects of our chosen system, but may well improve it beyond recognition.

A New Direction

While the political idealists fight amongst themselves, their arguments become irrelevant. All around, we are seeing the growth of systems and societal functions that show complete disregard for this outdated system of exchange based on money. How will technology and our changing society affect this monetary direction? Is it possible to alter its direction, to affect positive change? How would we go about doing this?

Local Currencies

Local currencies undermine the often corrupt state controlled monetary systems. They give some control back to the community and can assist in avoiding tax. However, at their essence, they are still systems of exchange and still subject to the underlying faults of this economic model.

Sharing

Creative commons increases sharing and improves collaboration. It undermines the monetary system because it allows creators and consumers to completely bypass money. This puts more value on creativity - anyone can download some movie making software, but making a movie is now the challenge - it is the end result that has value - even if it is given away.

Pay-it-forward

It might sound idealistic, but communities such as Freecycle create the environment for this philosophy to flourish.

With the abundance that many of us now enjoy, we have little need or even desire for anything in return. Ironically it was consumption focused capitalism that led to this abundance. Now many of us are looking around and just seeing too much junk.

Most significantly, exposure to this system changes people's expectations and attitudes. As a result there is a growing number of people who are happy to give things away without expecting anything in return. The concept of a free lunch is no longer seen as such an impossibility.

Minimalism

There is a growing trend of people who have taken the too-much-junk philosophy and applied it to their lives. People are realizing that there is more to life than the treadmill of consumption and refocusing their lives to be less about possessions. The growth of this attitude is profound — people are rejecting the system of Work > Buy Crap > Repeat in droves. They buy second hand, and they demand that products last. As this 'market' grows, it could have huge implications for the economy.

The Basic-Needs Epiphany

One implication of the growth of minimalism is the realization that it is relatively simple to survive with just the basic needs. Supplying these basic needs can mostly be done in a self sufficient way, but any other requirements are quite minimal and don't really require large infrastructure investments. The implications of this realization are that poverty is not necessary, for anyone, anywhere, ever!

Without poverty, many of society's problems are eliminated.

Abundance vs Falsely Perpetuated Artificial Scarcity

There is abundance of energy that can be converted into automation, and we would see this if the monetary system wasn't such an enemy of renewable, free energy. There is abundance of human resources capable of advancing science and technology to help us, if they only didn't have to work in inefficient, waste-of-time, non value creating jobs that exist just for the purpose of making money. There is abundance of materials if we make efficiency our way of life instead of planned obsolescence and waste.

Since computers became mainstream, we have been introduced to a form of abundance in the form of unlimited duplication. Until advanced nano-fabrication, this is only possible for digital property, but it opens our eyes to the possibility of a post-scarcity future. At the moment, computers demonstrate automated duplication of cheap data. Yet we are already seeing this brought into the physical world with advancing robotics. Material abundance is the only missing link in this chain, and you can expect there to be some progress in this area in the near future.

Abundance reduces value, and although it does not reduce the value of everything to zero, it certainly demonstrates a new way of looking at our monetary priorities and possibilities.

Automation

As well as increasing our duplication potential, automation has a significant impact on labor, employment, and value. We can expect a tipping point in the very near future where we are literally forced to rethink the roles of humans in the economy. This is perhaps the most pressing issue in our transition to a new kind of economy.

Power to the People

What all the systems above have in common is that they are bottom-up approaches. They have evolved; grass roots efforts have been enabled by technology and these systems have emerged based around what works. There has been no government intervention, no panel of experts dictating control, and even the corporations have largely failed to have an impact on these emerging mechanisms. Any corporations that have had an effect don't generally dictate the direction of these systems, they simply profit from assisting them. The companies themselves are forced to adapt — often their business models have to embrace the new way of doing things.

The masses are gaining significance — without needing to resort to the futility of politics and the false feeling of power provided by the vote. In the past, power has belonged to those in control of the monetary system, and those who knew how to use and abuse it. We must be wary as they will not give up their power gracefully and will do everything they can to hinder any transitions away from the current system.

We should also have foresight. The transition and the new systems will offer us incredible opportunities — opportunities for both personal growth and massive social change. Learn about the emerging systems and understand how to take advantage of them. At the same time, recognize the dangers.

The Future of Money will be complex. It will be empowering. It will be disruptive. It will change our lives, and will do so at an accelerating rate.

Further Reading

Introducing the Future of Money Project