PaoloSmythe

There is no co-operation in trade without qualification and thus exclusion. Economic, proximal, ethnic even religious. Trade as it currently stands is prohibited to more than it is available to and that creates scarcity, which dictates prices, which nurtures the 'haves and have nots' scenario. Such is not efficient. Even the warmest efforts in barter are not efficient when compared to the simple exchanged based purely and exclusively on demand.

Because a sustainable method of pea farming would be shared and enjoyed. This would be true of any commodity.

This was more an offering to springheeljack who suggested that such peacenik ruminations as this concept of (near-)utopia was a consequence of western, bleeding heart, guilt trippers. Catholic or not, if you doubt me, perhaps you could ask him to explain?

Well there you go. We are constrained by the never end need to pursue paying labour. Let us all go snowboarding. Find ever new and more challenging bits of back country to carve up and introduce other people to such hidden gems, safe in the knowledge that they would reciprocate in kind.

It could be said that a potential mate, who already has a suitor is not as good as one who does not.
With a world to choose from, why would you presume that the unattainable was the only ambition worth being sought?

Perhaps. But then a woman with no womb is completely useless (from the intrinsically selfish human perspective) no?

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

snaplok

Since I'm on a bus back from Philly and on my blackberry sipping gin and getting slighty toasted, I will offer one rebutal for now because I'm on a bus drinking gin and getting slightly toasted I do not see my or our destruction. I do see people who rather lay down and perish without trying. I am not one.might be upbringing, environment or ideals . But as my dad would say Rather by tried by 12 than carried by 6. Next post went I sober a little lol.

MunkySpunk

The fact that there are pretty girls and not pretty girls denotes a perceived inequality not at all based on human society but on instinct. Sure, the definition of 'pretty' will change from society to society, but the fact remains some are prettier than others. Seeking out these as mates is instinct. And how do we win them? Well, THIS society tells us we win them with fast cars and fancy clothes. Other societies say we win them by spotlessly cleaning up a small patch of forest floor in Papua New Guinea and dancing better than the other guy (birds of paradise). Speaking of Papua New Guinea, the human males there also get all dressed up and put on a dance to win females... no violence, no money, but they are still doing something to look better than the next guy. Make no mistake, however, the drive to win them is instinctual.Ask the lion, or the ram, or the whale, or the stag, or the rhino, or the wilda-beast... Nobody's telling them they have to compete, there are plenty of female wilda-beasts roaming Africa, yet they do because of instinct. And so do we.Wealth is a benchmark indicator of an individual's potential for success in the arena of current human society. A bigger and stronger lion makes a better mate in the arena of lion society because the selective pressures favor stronger and bigger. Just like human society has set up its selective pressure to favor those with the wherewithall to obtain fast cars and fancy clothes. It's an artificial selective pressure, but it doesn't make it false. Some selective pressures will always exist, or species never evolve.

The lion's mane is partly genetic, but diet heavily influences the mane (look at the stringy hair of any anorexic for proof of this). The better the diet, the fuller the mane. In the same way, the fitter the human is to live in today's society, the more expensive the clothes and the faster the car. They are visible, semi-quantitative markers for the opposite sex to evaluate and for peers to respect. If it's not Johnny's car that makes him stick out, it's Gronk's smilodon fang hanging around his neck (look at me cave girls, Gronk is a better hunter, mixing my DNA with yours will give you the best shot of preserving your bloodline). Artificial markers? Yes. False markers? Not from a probabilistic standpoint

All I'm arguing is that greed, self-interest, and the need to impress the opposite sex are all by-products of the 'survival of the fittest' instinct. I'll concede that the self-interest for a fast car is nurture and not nature. In the absence of being told what you want is a car, you'd still instinctively seek some measurable attribute to display to the opposite sex to set you apart from the herd.

justdust

I'm afraid I miss your point here. Of course "qualification" is inherent in the very definition of "trade", as in my offer of peas is qualified by a reciprocal offer of sex, and yes, there are those who will be excluded from that offer (I may be desparate, but do have some minimum standards). But as there are apt to be a handful who are not sufficiently interested in my offer in the first place, I'm don't comprehend the significance you are attaching to the "exclusion"
of any I might not trade with.

nah, you are smarter than that. First, trade may be prohibited to a few, and it may be unavailable to a great many more, but that can be rectified easily enough with existing political systems. More importantly, scarcity is not "created" by the lack of trade. Scarcity exists where people want something but don't have it...trade diminishes scarcity.

,
scarcity does influence price, assuming there is a demand to begin with. To illustrate the point, despite the fact I don't sing in public very often (scarcity), there is has not been much disappointment expressed (lack of demand). Scarcity is simply the product of demand (based on either real or percieved value) and availability.

What is the mechanism and motivation for the exchange you speak of?


Wait...if we are all pea farming, who is operating the lifts at the mountain? And what on earth would make me enjoy pea farming?

Ahh...I get it, we all do everything, we all have access to everything so we all want for nothing...this is a great plan! It is, of course, physically impossible, but no plan is perfect.


Snowboarding is only for the Chosen.

That could be said...but people tend to settle for whatever is handy.

1. I don't have the world to choose from...I am a physical being with physical limitations...I have to make choices...I can't have it all.
2. I don't equate the unattainable with worthy ambition...that is why I'm shooting holes in your pie-in-the-sky premise that money is the root of all evil.

Doing away with the money system will not eliminate or even regulate competition among people. Only the exercise of intellect holds the promise of curbing excess. That is why exercises such as this one, in which ideas are put forth and critiqued are imminently worthwhile.



Not touching that one.

PaoloSmythe

Well I think this is based upon personal preference and such subjectivity should not be applied to all persons, just as more money is promoted as being 'better' than less.

And this is the problem, as neither fast cars nor fancy clothes assure you of any of those things you would presume that they do.
It is a fallacy and as such a waste of your time, if what you claim to be over riding instinctual objectives are true.
We have been left to labour under this misinformation, by those who would wish for us to jump thru hoops to provide them with our energies with which they line their pockets. Once upon a time, you wouldn't stand a chance of getting laid if you didn't have a cigarette sophisticatedly hanging from your bottom lip!

Hhmmmm….. Tis a good example. To appeal to the ladies with plates in their lips, the fellas try to eclipse the attractiveness of any other fella. This competition is derived from the selfish acquisition of a finite resource. Even tho the Guineans manage this without bar brawls and fast cars, this does little to undermine the idea that such things are just how we try to get the hunnies.

And so money, or the conspicuous presence of wealth can suggest to prospective mates, the capacity to provide for them in the western world, just as a jungle geezer's hot stepping skills suggest he is likely to avoid jaguars and catch many a monkey.

This need for financial reassurance tho is a symptom of the monetary system which guarantees such a concern remains at the forefront of people's mind. What criteria of fitness would arise in an environment devoid of a monetary system? Would it be more relevent?

I can concede that as a species, we are prone to competitive urges; I am less convinced tho that such urges are best spent on economic ambition; espcially when looking at the extent to which such ambition can be exploited.

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