MunkySpunk

Which is entirely based on the assumption that a) There exists enough 'stuff' for everybody to have an equal share in it b) Joe is content with an ugly wife (euphamism for inferior genetics) while his neighbor has a hot wife, despite the fact that Joe and his neighbor are equal in all measurable ways, and c) it will never occur to Joe to ask 'Why did I get the ugly wife and what can I do to score a hot wife?'Finite resources, therein lies the inequality. What happens when a resource gets quite scarce? Who gets their share and who doesn't? How is this determined?

Agreed, but such actions encourage selection for other traits, such as a rationale minds capable of quite sophisticed deviousness. Wanting money is not a direct genetic trait, no. But in today's society, the intrinsic genetic trait of selfishness manifests itself as monetary greed (among other things). Those who have the genetics to thrive in modern society will, logically, be the most likely to have the fast cars and fancy clothes. It's the manifestations of basic drives and urges wearing a mask of modern society.
That's what I'm getting at, yes. As fucked up, artificial and perverted as it is - a six pack abs, fast car and fancy clothes are the human equivalent of a strong lion with a great mane.
Destruction of the species (as a whole) is not necessarily in our nature. However making myself appear, to that hot girl over there, more fit to fuck than the next guy is what it's all about. If that means stealing the other guy's car and driving it into the river, or beating the piss out of him behind the bar is what it takes for me to score (pass on my chromosomes), so be it. The species will survive, and I'll have passed on my genes.
I know you're not trying to bust my chops, we're having a debate, not an argument.

Anyway I disagree, the monetary system is merely a convenient way to quantify and horde labor and production. The desire to lift oneself over your competitor is still there, it just manifests itself, in our society, as monetary greed. Instinct is the cause, monetary greed is the consequence. Wanting more land, a bigger hut, or a hotter wife could just as easily be the consequences.Unless the finite resource it is too scarce for everyone to share.It doesn't need to manifest itself as superficial and consumeristic, but it WILL manifest itself in some way shape or form. I don't want to keep up with the Jones', particularly if Mrs. Jones is a hottie (superior mate) and I want to fuck her. Then I'll try to surpass the Jones' and land myself a better mate so I can pass on my genes. Whether I'm building a bigger hut, driving a faster car, or beating the shit out of Mr. Jones in front of his family and killing his kids so Mrs. Jones ovulates (lions)... there will ALWAYS be some sort of inequity to overcome. Those who are richer (not necessaily money) will try to hold onto it, and those who are poorer will try to get it.

Money and capitalism aren't the cause, they're just the manifestation of the consequence.

What I'm getting at is that even if it's not money, it will be SOMETHING that one it trying to obtain to set him apart from the others and make himself more fit. Humans print money, peacocks grow feathers, birds of paradise dance, male lions kill each other, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance... the drive is as ancient as anything else on this planet.

snaplok

I won't reexample the examples given, but the last statement does warrant one. Better is it's own definition, mostly to the person who is using it. All beings want and strive to be better. If not then you stagnate and perish. Passing on genes as munky said is a genetic trait to spread ourselves, so that when we have a child that scores a winning touchdown, that's my boy. It really is my seed is better than yours and we are proud of our ofspring.

A greater intellectual capacity than the next person will yeld I am smarter than thou. Even in the intangible, some one will find a better than the next ideal. Yes capitalism is about trappings. You can come to realize that the girl you got ONLY likes you for your car. You may care, or you may not. But either way, since modern society will only change by way of several 3000 kiloton yield nukes across the globe, we might never find out if your idea would fly. Whatever remains after the blast was better than the ones that didn't and from there the better of the ones left will vie for power and so on and so on and...

Bleak ain't it?

SpringheelJack

I honestly don't have any clue how people can discuss a cashless society as if though it was a plausible concept. We passed the point of no return on that with the industrial revolution, and it went completely out of view once the world economy left the gold standard. You might as well discuss the potential merits of a Thor-ocracy for all its potential to be made a reality.

Regions are now highly specialized in their production: very few regions,if any, are currently capable of full self-sufficiency on even a basic level, and none on the level of current society. Money is the foundation of the global trading economy, and without it, it would collapse, and BILLIONS of people would die for lack of basic necessities. Even without the death toll, we would intentionally be resetting human progress to a pre-industrialized state. This would lose its novelty the first time you needed to walk somewhere 50 miles away.

What's amusing to me is that this conversation always comes from bleeding hearts, a symptom of Western guilt. They imagine that only, if only, we didn't have credit cards suddenly the Third World would be lifted onto our level. The fact is, the Third World would be by far the hardest hit. Wildly over-populated past their already meager ability to sustain themselves, and with little of value to trade, they would collapse in a frightful fashion. Blame the Third World's condition on the global economy if you must, but realize that it's currently the only thing keeping them afloat.

I personally have no wish to see a global Great Leap Forward, how about you?

snaplok

Yeah! x2

PaoloSmythe

everyone enjoys an EQUAL share; if this results in a neglible amount being offered to each, then each will learn to live without.

in an equal community no one deserves and thus receives more than anyone else. A simple antithesis of egocentricity.

but such attributes are false and do not guarantee the successful and complete genetic fitness you are suggesting they exist to provide. afterall a lion's mane is a direct indication of a genetic level of health. a human's wealth, is merely a suggestion of success in an area of human behaviour. it is a product of an environment which we have all been indoctrinated into, believing its at the very heart of our essence. but it is not.

but what is it that makes the 'pretty girl' appear to be a scarce resource? (or that your ferrari keyring isn't attached to a key for a yugo?)

there is no shortage of pretty girls in this world and judging by the manner in which we raise our young (due to direct genetic consequence,) we tend to commit ourselves to a predominantly monogomous relationship so as to raise the offspring, and so we need only find just one individual.

considering the global human population, desirable / adequate mates are not in themselves limited in supply, and so why the need to fight or undermine the attractiveness of a competitor? identify what makes that pretty girl the pretty girl and see if the same applies in a world devoid of monetary systems.

who's labour and who's production? for who's gain? this smacks of inequality and panders to the capitalist system which we have already noted is doomed to fail, due to it being fundamentally unethical.

Peacocks do grow feather but do not kill each other; birds dance and lions fight, whilst bacteria and viruses do their best to survive their anti-biotic environments, but none of these cases justify our printing of money; not only do we claim to be enlightened and superiror to these and (i suggest) all other examples, but we have already developed the technology to allow us to share and not to fight.

There is sustainability out there and there is a method to promote self-regulatory, self-imposed, inhibition to greed. Everything thus far feed into the brains of modern day humans is done so, to foster the moentary system which ultimately works by leaching from our minds, our energies, our lives.

Go to school to go to uni; go to uni to get a job; get a job to get money; get money to survive.

Hows about we cut the shit and go to school to learn how to survive and enjoy the life and planet we found ourselves with?

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

PaoloSmythe

Pride does not equate to more successful fecundity though. Remember, what we are discussing, is whether the capacity to be greedy is instinctual, ie genetically derived. The sentiment to suggest greed is good, is that we wish to pass on our genes to the next generation. But pride and egocentricty, be it sourced from pee wee touch downs, a sports car, or breast implants do absolutely nothing to support such a primitive urge to procreate. Apples and orang-utans!

And then what....? Congrats you won the pub quiz. Is this where it ends?

Would there not be greater kudos afforded if such intellectual strength were passed onto other people, thus increasing their intelligence and thus the overall ability of a community; a species?

And that is a bleak tragedy, to which we might all be to blame for?

Despite our ability to converse so eloquently about a train of thought which is completely alien to us, we lack the courage or maybe the simple imagination to do anything, other than envisage our own destruction. We, the products of the monetary system are as doomed to failure as the system itself.

Perhaps if we could spendmore time dreaming and less time working to pay of credit cards, we'd be 'better' off?

Zeitgeist: Addendum

specifically chapter 4 (about 1:32 in) use tips 1 thru to 5

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

PaoloSmythe

well perhaps you should apply more thought to it. i regard you to my signature

there are no regions, there are no countries. there are only corporations! the high specialisation which has developed was in pursuit of optimal economic viability; rid yourself of this monetary constraint and you can adopt a completely free and thus equal distribution of everything.

if, as the intellectual mind would suggest, we came from something along the lines of a big bang, (rather than an invisible deity,) then we are all of the same origins. that we find ourselves in different physical locations on this same terrestrial origin, fails to undermine that we and this planet share the one same singularity. when we fight each other, we fight ourselves.

now punch yourself in the face.

NEWSFLASH - people are already dying because of this 'global trading economy'.

why? how does the free distribution of technology reset it back to a time when such didn't exist? you are scaremongering here.

you mistake me for someone else buddy.

it is we who place a value on what they have to trade. it is therefore we, the promoters of this trading system that determine their levelof pverty and thus suffering.

the concept of 'value' is as with 'better', entirely subjective and designed to undermine others for personal reward. this is unethical.

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

justdust

Uhm, I don't like peas. They make me gag. In a cashless society, I would trade my global share of the world's peas for something else I would rather have...maybe something healthy, maybe not. Maybe some really attractive mate would accept my peas in trade for sex, and I could pass on both my peas and my genes. All I need for your utopia to work is an efficient mechanism for hooking up with this woman, and everything will be just ducky.

Or maybe I would just flick my peas at people I don't like.

PaoloSmythe

hhmmm efforts at humour aside, there seems to remain an inclination to presume that the only way to get that, which is necessary, is via some form of trade, be it cash, or peas, or looking appealing......

not true.

you would have no peas if you didn't want peas. those who do like peas would have no need for your's for they would already have enough of their own.

those things you do need would be your's already. and as such, you would be motivated to ensure other people had all that they needed, because you suffered the 'guilt' of being content. frankly, there'd be nothing else for you to do, as there would be no job to go to, in order to accumulate the wealth that affords you security and / or comfort.

you could spend your time, not flicking peas at people you do not like (you would have no reason to dislike anyone!) but instead finding that perfect woman.

the perfect woman being intrinsic to the human nature of propagating genetic code!

__________________
Just coz you don't understand it
Doesn't mean it makes no sense!

justdust

Uh, yes it is. I cannot possibly obtain everything I need by myself (that was evident even in the womb)...to even attempt to do so would be to completely squander the efficiencies inherent in our capacity for communal cooperation (limited as it is). Consequently, trade is essential.

Damn right.

How?


Contentment = guilt? Are you Catholic?


fActually, I would spend a fair amount of time snowboarding or picking my nose...I can always find something to do other than work for the good of others (this post, for example).

And some even more lazy bastard would wait for me to find her, then try to take her away, giving me cause to flick peas at him.


It takes more than a womb to qualify as perfect.