Will Technology become so Advanced that it will remove the need or relevance of money?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
In star trek first contact Picard said that money is no-longer the driving force of humanity when asked how much it costs to build the enterprise.

Will Technology become so Advanced that it will remove the need or relevance of money?

The value of something is based on scarcity. Property rights, traditionally, is based on scarcity also. That’s why we have to work and pay for things. We also have to pay people to build things for us which is just reward for the labor of a human being.

However, say for example we invented food replicators and atomic-constructor systems, so that we could produce anything we want of any amount out of atoms (which is entirely possible!). Would this remove the need of an economy?

And if so, what would take it’s place?
 
Last edited:
Things will always be as they are. Even food replicators and constructor systems would never eliminate the advantages that people would want. So for instance, if tiny homes could be built in four hours, there would still be the question of who gets the plot by the lake? And much of our economy is service-based, so you’d still have to find ways to pay for your child’s tutor, or your doctor.

Money will always be needed. We should do everything we can to make sure cash is always a possible currency, because the more people’s purchases are tracked, the more difficulty people will have subverting an oppressive government.
 
The fact that we have a limitless supply of energy pouring down on us at every moment means that it will eventually and effectively be free.

How that affects society I have no idea. Commerce is the glue that maintains societies. Remove it and what holds it together?
 
Lara said:
Money will always be needed. We should do everything we can to make sure cash is always a possible currency, because the more people’s purchases are tracked, the more difficulty people will have subverting an oppressive government.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate more on the importance of money in regards to Government corruption. For example if everything was digital instead of money, would this be a bad thing?
 
Bradskii said:
How that affects society I have no idea. Commerce is the glue that maintains societies. Remove it and what holds it together?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s what i am wondering. Picard said that the desire to become better and explore the universe was the new driving force. I know it’s just fiction, but it’s one example.

However given the current state of things, the idea that “becoming better” would replace commerce is hard to imagine…
 
Last edited:
Lara said:
And much of our economy is service-based, so you’d still have to find ways to pay for your child’s tutor, or your doctor.
Click to expand...
Well, if everything they need could be produced by these replicators or atomic-constructors, then essentially everything we did would be done out of an individuals desire and not for money. Everything would change. So getting people to do what we want would have to be achieved in some other way. I think the existence of that technology essentially makes scarcity non-existent. In other words the essential reasons why most people work would be removed. There would no longer be any need for most services. Money would be meaningless.

In fact i think that the government and certain elite individuals would suppress that kind of technology as it would dramatically reduce the power that they have.
 
Last edited:
You need to think of examples in which you are unhappy with a government policy. Say the government got to the point of punishing people who don’t support the transgender philosophy. Your child’s teachers are all transgendered and you want to teach your children that it’s not right. So you figure, you’ll enhance their learning with a book on how to subvert transgender activism. Problem is every purchase you make is tracked and the government has become Orwellian. You could barter with your neighbour, asking them for the book, but that would put you at risk of the “tolerance and conformity” police.

Cash also helps crime, yes, but privacy is more important than freedom from crime, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I’m just riffing here as it’s an interesting question I haven’t thought of before.

The day after we get limitless energy, the value of something is then determined by the work that someone puts in to producing it. There is no cost involved in the energy required to produce it. Other than the time one spends in making it.

So the value changes dramatically. Things that were energy expensive will now be a lot less valuable and things that were labour intensive will be a lot more valuable.

So if I spend all day fishing and you spend all day making beer, then we would work out the value of a fish compared to a pint of beer and do an exchange. We’d effectively be back to bartering.

I assume that a new monetary system would evolve to represent the new values.

But then, I never studied economics.
 
Bradskii said:
I’m just riffing here as it’s an interesting question I haven’t thought of before.

The day after we get limitless energy, the value of something is then determined by the work that someone puts in to producing it. There is no cost involved in the energy required to produce it. Other than the time one spends in making it.

So the value changes dramatically. Things that were energy expensive will now be a lot less valuable and things that were labour intensive will be a lot more valuable.

So if I spend all day fishing and you spend all day making beer, then we would work out the value of a fish compared to a pint of beer and do an exchange. We’d effectively be back to bartering.

I assume that a new monetary system would evolve to represent the new values.

But then, I never studied economics.
Click to expand...
Well, once you remove the scarcity of things, fishes and beer included, the only thing that might remain scarce is other peoples labor. But how do you convince somebody to help you on a project if they are not compelled by the scarcity of things or the desire to own something?

This does create a conundrum, and it would have profound consequences in society. People would have to be motivated by something other than scarcity. If you wanted to go to space you would have to find other people who also want to go to space since there would be no other motivating factor.

Such technology is dangerous for the government in terms of power and control. The only way the government could maintain things as they are now is by creating and enforcing artificial scarcity. In other-words they would have to take the technology for themselves and impose a tax on it’s use.

I think that would be wrong.
 
Last edited:
It’s a can of worms to be sure. How do you maintain roads, education, defense? If everyone is fishing or making beer then it all falls apart.

But wouldn’t it be a self righting system? If the roads in our area need fixing then you and I can get together and supply some guy with fish and beer to fix them. So then one fish equals two beers equals an hour fixing the roads. So why don’t we use one of these old fashioned dollar thingies to represent, I dunno, one fish. So you give the guy fixing the road a dollar and it means that he can exchange it for a fish when he gets hungry. Or buy two beers.
 
Bradskii said:
But wouldn’t it be a self righting system? If the roads in our area need fixing then you and I can get together and supply some guy with fish and beer to fix them. So then one fish equals two beers equals an hour fixing the roads. So why don’t we use one of these old fashioned dollar thingies to represent, I dunno, one fish. So you give the guy fixing the road a dollar and it means that he can exchange it for a fish when he gets hungry. Or buy two beers.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean, some kind of bartering would need to take place. However, the value of bringing fish to somebody in exchange for something else would still rely on some kind of limitation if not scarcity. If i know how to fix a road, and somebody says i will give you 200 fish; the problem is i know that i can just go to one of these constructor thingies to get as much fish as i want. So where is the motivating factor? If i fix the road it would have to be for something other than scarcity.

I think only a strongly held ideology or belief would be a motivating factor if things were no-longer scarce.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
money is no-longer the driving force of humanity
Click to expand...
I think the desire for power is a stronger driving force than the desire for money. Or at least the underlying drive for striving after money.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
40.png
IWantGod:
money is no-longer the driving force of humanity
Click to expand...
I think the desire for power is a stronger driving force than the desire for money. Or at least the underlying drive for striving after money.
Click to expand...
Power always equals control. I have no power over you if I have no control over what you do. I can (generally) control what you do if I have what you need. If I have something that you need then that gives it value.

It’s a short step from people agreeing that something has value to giving it a monetary value.

Therefore, the people with the most money have the most power. Ergo, the persuit of money could be considered a prerequisite of the persuit of power.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
However, say for example we invented food replicators and atomic-constructor systems …
Click to expand...
How much do you want for one of those food replicators? Would you take 2 atomic-constructor systems (slightly used) in exchange?

Money is a medium of exchange, that is, money facilitates commerce. Nothing more.
 
IWantGod said:
In star trek first contact Picard said that money is no-longer the driving force of humanity
Click to expand...
Money was mentioned a bit earlier, in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. They travel back in time to the 20th century. Kirk observes, “They’re still using money. We’ve got to find some.” As I recall, Scotty barters advanced technology (from the 23rd century?) to get what they need.

I have always imagined that the Star Trek economy works because 23rd Century people find their work sufficiently gratifying that they do it for free, and they take goods and use resources only as far as they need.

Needless to say, they are well beyond the fishing and drinking mentality, and they apparently have little use for TV entertainment, social media, and legalized cannabis.
 
Last edited:
If this happened, one simple solution would be to impose a headcount tax on everyone between the age of 18 and 65 (with exceptions for clergy, religious, and married women).
 
A fixed amount of money that each person must pay to the government every so often (e.g. once a year).
 
Longevity and life-saving efforts require scarce and expensive resources.

In the not too distant future, I can envision where we “work to live”, albeit to ages far exceeding those of today’s actuarial projections.

We may, in the future (de facto) predetermine the approximate time of our own demise through the interest/willingness/ability to work to pay for extraordinary life saving techniques, however crass and unfortunate it may be.

In this way, out currency becomes time. Our time. Note that many (me included) do not want to live indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top