Multi-Species Economy and Money, Red fish blue fish rich fish poor fish Options

Well i'm back, i didn't save the world, i failed.

Like a million other plan's that fell short of fulfillment. I had to give it a go.

First post i clicked on was this, an your sigil inspired me to Sigilize my ideas on money, which i think was a good thing.

It's quite wrong, money, by it's very nature it rewards people for species selfishness an hardly anything else.

None of my money spells seem to work beond getting things ticking over again, this may be due to my ineptitude but i like to think it's because large quantitys of the stuff would corrupt my pure nature.
However, that is most likey just an excuse so i can continue thinking i'm better than everyone, especially the rich people i don't know.

Like a true idealist, i've been trying to find an alternative ecconomic solution most of my life, so here it is, bear with me, its a bit rough around the edges.
You will probably just think im crazy, which is probably true to most standards, hear me out though because good critisisim makes everyone sainer.

Imagine if money wasn't just created by banks or standardised by a finite material substance like gold.
Imagine that every living thing on this planet were given a bank account with a living allowance and that was how money was created..

So everyone gets enough living allowance to live a comfortable life (globaly stabalizing over a period of time)
Even if their in work or already have lots of money.

I'm not sure how this would effect the global ecconomy, pumping wealth indefinilty like this would need a means in-which money was destroyed so it would cycle
and not deflate the value of the currency's, maybe taxation
I'm no economist, so i'll leave the devil to the details

You see if money could be derived from looking after the interests of other species as well as humans it would create a whole compassionate industry.
loads of jobs of alturistic ideals

I see it working like.. the fisherman fish's for tuna, get's it, but because the tuna own's itself the fisherman owes the species of tuna (an any other species caught) an amount of money so when he sells the tuna to people he can pay the fish back (which could fund fish breeding/preservation programs) with the money from other peoples living allowance.
Now it's obvious that each indevidual fish wouldn't be easily able to spend their money, but they could hire as groups (species or localized ecco systems) people to better their living conditions in whatever way they could.

With technologie as it is, it's not hard to see how this could be accomplished within a lifetime.

I guess what i'm trying to define here is a model of altruistic motives so that the 'luck' of the sigl would give the user equivilant money according to a higher set of motives
and maybe to also loose money accordingly aswell.

So if you live your life accordingly you are blessed by the thing but if your an evil bastard its going to buggar you up.
Either way it should alter the flow of money in the world, placing presure in all the right places to cause a global rearrangement
Also, if your wishing for money, it 'should' naturaly help you pursue alturistic goals rather than become more selfish as it seems to when wishing for wealth in other ways.

So in a way, this is a sigil that may take you on a journey to perform some saintly task that you will be rewarded for with money..
or having already contributed to society/ecology to be rewarded as such..
or having earnestly decided to contribute, gain reward before the task, like credit, so as lack of money wouldn't hinder the accomplishment of said tasks..

Well that's the idea anyway, it's not finished, i've not enchanted the sigl yet, looking for a bit of critisisim first, what ya recon?

Baaah, well i've removed my sigil as it was disdainfully off topic.. apparently.

This post has been edited by Draw: Jul 2 2012, 05:18 PM

It is an altruistic ideal, but unfortunately the value of money is defined by it's limited availability. This is why in economic troughs we don't just print new money. (Well, it happens, but it's always a bad idea and usually it's an idiot who suggests it in the first place. Which is why idiots shouldn't have clout like they can in our country...)

It can help to think of money as representative of Credit for Work. You do this much work, you earn this much money which represents the fact that you did this work. Then, you can trade that credit to others in exchange for goods, etc., and they now hold that credit for the work you did. Someone up on the top skims a bit off of that exchange, but from each of millions of these exchanges, because they are responsible for facilitating the exchange in the first place (they own the stores, factories, etc.)

It is not a perfect system. But, one of the benefits of money, that is so often ignored, is that without it we rely on the barter system, which means that a person's wealth is determined by how much they own in terms of real things - land, cattle, crops, etc. If we go back to something like that, then we severely limit the potential wealth of the common man, and we lose the ability to compensate people for work that is not based on physical commodities. What do you give the worker who keeps electricity going? A bag of wheat? Enough food to feed his family for two weeks until the next 'pay day'?

Also it means slowly sinking back into a feudalism state of society. Currently, no one would be likely to take over, say, the southeast states. And more importantly, there would be no point to doing it. More trouble than it is worth, for very little gain other than a headache. However, if wealth and power were determined by the amount of land one holds, then there is suddenly a very big incentive. Take over the southeast and you take over crops, cattle, workers who live there, etc. Such a thing wouldn't happen because of the altruistic nature of people when money is gone, you say? No. Money creates a representation of wealth that allows those who wish to have it to do so without conquering surrounding lands. Imagine subjugating your suburb to expand your holdings!

The only way for a system to work without any currency, is to return to the barter system, and for everyone to give up the desire for wealth and work for the good of the community as a whole. When you need a new road, everyone pitches in to help build it. Need better infrastructure? Everyone agrees, and gets to work. We all appreciate the work that the various utility people do, so we all pitch in a little to keep them fed since they are not farmers and spend their time keeping the systems running rather than planting food and tending herds. Everyone would need to be aware and concerned about every other individual to ensure no one would get left behind. All the way up to the top of the governing system, there would be no room for any kind of greed or the whole thing would not work.

If you want to approach a new system where currency is obsolete (which is what you've suggested) what we need is unlimited clean energy. With that, we could fulfill every need, automate most work, eliminate the necessity of currency, and provide everyone everywhere with everything they could want. There would be no point in lusting after wealth because security would not be based on holding limited commodities.

peace

If you want to approach a new system where currency is obsolete (which is what you've suggested) what we need is unlimited clean energy. With that, we could fulfill every need, automate most work, eliminate the necessity of currency, and provide everyone everywhere with everything they could want. There would be no point in lusting after wealth because security would not be based on holding limited commodities.

I'm not suggesting that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) far from it, you seem to be thinking about that 'Venus Project' rubbish which is totally impractical, offers no real incentive an degenerates as a society unless it's alone in the world even with free limitless energy, which is easier than people think, people's natural kindness would shine through as is suggested but people always want something extra from over the wall..

The only way for a system to work without any currency, is to return to the barter system, and for everyone to give up the desire for wealth and work for the good of the community as a whole. When you need a new road, everyone pitches in to help build it. Need better infrastructure? Everyone agrees, and gets to work. We all appreciate the work that the various utility people do, so we all pitch in a little to keep them fed since they are not farmers and spend their time keeping the systems running rather than planting food and tending herds. Everyone would need to be aware and concerned about every other individual to ensure no one would get left behind. All the way up to the top of the governing system, there would be no room for any kind of greed or the whole thing would not work.

An people are lazy by default, why be the first to help build that road? none of those buggers are doing it! their are loads of people who just leach off the ones doing the work.
Your right of course, no room for greed in a big barter system like that, which is why it doesn't work on a big scale without a currency.

It is not a perfect system. But, one of the benefits of money, that is so often ignored, is that without it we rely on the barter system, which means that a person's wealth is determined by how much they own in terms of real things - land, cattle, crops, etc. If we go back to something like that, then we severely limit the potential wealth of the common man, and we lose the ability to compensate people for work that is not based on physical commodities. What do you give the worker who keeps electricity going? A bag of wheat? Enough food to feed his family for two weeks until the next 'pay day'?
Also it means slowly sinking back into a feudalism state of society.

Money is not going away, as you say, it stops wars, compensates people for building roads/schools, teaching, government, farming, entertainment etc.. but it doesn't compensate people for looking after profitless forests, managing ocean fish levels, maintaining a good quality of life for farm animals, scientific research into cheap curative medicine, educating people with truth's that help _them_, preserving delicate ecosystems with rare species.. you know, all those things that qualify as species compassionate task's that we should be doing more of..

The rest of the world needs money, not just us humans, without it they are powerless to our whims, we are taking the piss a bit atm.
Money has strengthened our society's no end, but it is just an idea, an as such it can be applied to the natural world.
It's good because it works, it's bad because it's out of balance.

It is an altruistic ideal, but unfortunately the value of money is defined by it's limited availability. This is why in economic troughs we don't just print new money. (Well, it happens, but it's always a bad idea and usually it's an idiot who suggests it in the first place. Which is why idiots shouldn't have clout like they can in our country...)

It can help to think of money as representative of Credit for Work. You do this much work, you earn this much money which represents the fact that you did this work. Then, you can trade that credit to others in exchange for goods, etc., and they now hold that credit for the work you did. Someone up on the top skims a bit off of that exchange, but from each of millions of these exchanges, because they are responsible for facilitating the exchange in the first place (they own the stores, factories, etc.)

An with nothing for all the creatures plants an fungi to trade (not even their own bodys) it's a perfect excuse to abuse all none human life, they have no right to life.
God has given us the right to torture abuse an waist all in our wake.

No. money has.

So above as below, or inside as out or whatever.
Our system as it stands doesn't just abuse our fellow inhabitance of this planet, it's echo makes us abuse each-other.

Just printing money.. isn't wise.. it's meant as an incentive to do something of worth, that's why it has worth.

This is why i'm saying, just print it for all the living things, because they are the only things of actual worth on this planet,
gold, jewels, oil an the rest only matter to humans, an mostly only because they seem in limited supply.
Their is an almost limitless supply of all matter we know of in the universe, the only thing of truly limited supply is diversity of life, even weird plankton and common weeds have more future use's than gold.

Conceptual money can be limited in any way they like, atm it's just a massive greedy see-saw dripping with blood, it goes up an crush's all the life around us, it goes down an it crushes us.

Fairness is what i seek here, an it might seem a bit hard to imagine people getting a good wage for 'green things' without having to beg anyone but it's an actual possibility, a possibility that would give work to billions of people and make wanting money into wanting to do good.

It's hard to want something without wanting to be like someone who has it, an even just wanting a bigger cut of the lot is like wanting to be more like what the over all effect of that thing is.
This what frustrates me when trying to become wealthy, because i don't want that likeness but i'm a greedy man.. just marginally greedier about my personality.

I'm sorry, what was the topic about again?
Oh yeah, what dose the physical objects of money mean to you..
Well for me it would be a blood dripping see-saw and love of the monarchy, both ingrained into my mind far better than any hypnotist could, values are the base programming of an awful lot.



p.s. thanks for playing devils advocate, it reminds me of what it means to be without ego. I'm still rubbish at that game though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

This post has been edited by Draw: Jul 3 2012, 05:09 AM

Well fatherjhon is absolutely right, this is all quite off topic, and inconsistent to a flaw besides

Could i have all my posts deleted?

I've saved them so i can re-edit an re-post in a new thread..

Please? i don't mean to be annoying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well fatherjhon is absolutely right, this is all quite off topic, and inconsistent to a flaw besides

Could i have all my posts deleted?

I've saved them so i can re-edit an re-post in a new thread..

Please? i don't mean to be annoying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I've created a separate topic. At your request I will edit the topic title and description, but you are welcome to post any updates or alterations to your proposal here. It's poor practice to simply go back and delete posts we want to do over, consider the forum to be a kind of collective journal that can, over time, show progression, reaction, evolution of thought, etc. We preserve the whole for the sake of completeness of process. Very Meta, once given to the forum, what you put forth becomes part of a wider picture than you would have/could have conceived of initially.

Come back and read all of your posts in 2-3 years, you'll appreciate it.

peace

Thank you Vagrant! Done a fine job moving and renaming.

The wealth of knowledge on this board is incredible as a result of good up-keep, which to a messy bugger like me is quite good training.


Now, i'm definitely going to have to start again with that sigil, cos it's only a pre-curser an i can't remember what it's meant to do that well either.
So ignore the thing if possible, i made it months ago an isn't what i've described it as.
The bad luck if your in-dept to the world thing is an obvious blunder, my personal finances can't take much more of a bashing.

I'm just panicking a bit, the only alternative economic solution available is this Resource Based Economy proposed by the venus project an it has very little practical value..
So i need to try an iron out this theory of mine to see if it's any better, an if it is then wrap it up into a nice viral package.
Has to be right though, hence why i've come back for intelligent critisisim i think (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


So i've been thinking.. An effective ecconomic system has to have a progressive increase in wealth, but not too much.
People might not like the idea of standardising how much a life is worth, it reak's of slavery an such, but we enslave people an animals all the time so i think that's just dodging a fact.
If a life had a quantitive value, then a relative quantitive amount (for spending on the behalf of that life) could be periodicly given to that life-form.

I mean.. well, us humans now have enough technology to live fairly easy lives, it's like we have finally got our shit together, we don't have to worry for our survival any more (potentially) so in a way what i'm proposing is enabling people to be able to look after all the none-humans in the world. It's kind of our job and their are billions of people wanting work.

I've got a lot of cat's..
An they have destroyed the rotant population in my area.
Now really, i feel guilty about that, poor little tikes.
In my situation my cat's would be earning some money for simply being cats and i'd still be paying my earnings to feed them but my cats would owe certain species of rodant quite a lot of money, which i would rightfully have to pay considering the enclosed nature of the area and the limited number of rodents.
Now if i lived near a farm, and rodents where destroying local business then the rodents would owe quite a lot to them, and the business would in fact owe my cats for their efforts (paying me for their upkeep), the farm/business could also just kill the little blighters using traps etc.. equalizing their dept that way.
If they killed one of my cats with poison though.. i'd probably just burn their screaming lives from this planet, but i could simply demand compensation equivilant to their base value + their localized value (keeping me sane)

Now i'm not saying every tiny little thing has to be worked out, but being that it can it offers a legal framework so that should it need to be it can be investigated.

Now rodents earn money by default, but spend it as they damage the eco-systems around them, should they have a local abundance at any point this would present an opportunity for some entrepreneurial human to make some money by either bettering their habitat, breeding more rodents (or moving some) or by taking legal action against over enthusiastic cats/farmers.
The human could make it quite official by using a camera phone with GPS and some encryption software.

Major objectives;
to make it profitable for one life form to provide for another life-form even if their is no direct value to the exchange.
for a workless life to be comfortable and sustainable and a work-filled life to be rewarded.
for the flow of money to accurately represent the idealistic natural flow of the eco-systems present.

Dose that make and sense? cos i had to get drunk to write it.

X

While it seems like a very species-egalitarian ideal, there are major issues to contend with, and the least surmountable one is the cooperation of the entire world. The economy is global whether we like it or not, so something like this would cripple a nation on it's own - everyone has to be on board. To be entirely honest, this will not happen no matter how viral it goes on the internet. Consider from the point of view of the indigenous people who don't bother with local currency. What your proposing is not a return to a more natural eco-system based economy, but to bring the rest of the natural world into our system.

The venus project, for contextual comparison, is an 'enclosed' system; hypothetically a small city could be built up around this ideal and export something in trade rather than pay cash for importing goods (which would be necessary). However, within the confines of the city their system would work fine; incorporating them into the rest of the world is a challenge but not impossible, so the whole world does not have to be on board with it - just respect the project, and possibly be convinced of it's usefulness through example. What you are proposing, however, requires world wide cooperation from stage one, or you will have a local economic sink-hole of destitution. The species we rely on are widespread, so even limiting this system to species which are of domestic use would still require.

We would also need a method to track the population and ensure that people aren't going out on their own and hunting/poaching without paying the species their due. This is a logistical nightmare - tracking and responding to poachers just in our current system is difficult enough.

You also have to look at representation for each species, which would reasonably be organized into heirarchies similar to the current organizing method - kingdom, phylum, etc... - and then of course there will have to be some kind of economic balance kept there as well. Can a species be bankrupt from, in say the case of rodents, swarming over an area and doing so much damage? First instance, there is an area of Australia which is periodically beset by a plague of mice which render their fields useless for the season. The monetary damage to these farmers is in the millions, but the damage goes further than just this - do the farmers get compensation from the mice and if so, to what limit? What if the mice do not have 5 million dollars plus damages (because of the loss of income, the farmers' family suffers, they are unable to accomplish repairs, etc).

The implications of a system like the one your propose are catastrophically far reaching and complicated. The use of currency, the very idea of an economy, hinges on the cooperation of reasoning individuals. Animals do not care about the state of our economy, or the value of our land, our goods, our buildings, etc., and because of this must legally be considered incompetent in terms of any sort of lawsuit against them for, say, destroying ten thousand acres of farm land.

So instead you have representational groups who receive reports and appeals, and who generally organize the committees who use the funds of the species to do whatever eco-friendly work keeps that species going based on it's needs in response to human intervention. What happens when, through lack of necessary research, we make a mistake that is actually more damaging to that species? Do we pay them malpractice damages?

A solution to the kind of problem you are approaching here, doesn't need to be as complicated as a new economy. And assigning a monetary value to everything only suggests that everything can be bought, or paid for when damaged. You'd have corporations buying entire species and setting the value themselves.

Economics is a quagmire of complicated issues that it seems you may not entirely have a thorough grasp of. It would be worthwhile to study economic systems first, and then approach a solution to the problem you observe based on the reasoning behind other systems. Also look into taxation practices and tax law as well, they vary from culture to culture. You can still think outside the box, but there is a reason why our economies work the way they do, and by understanding how they work and why, you can get an idea of why they tend to perpetuate themselves and how to alter the course to a new heading.

Even something a simple as this new fair-tax suggestion in America would take a heinous amount of manpower and nationwide cooperation to implement, to the point that one of the main problems with implementing it is that it would destroy jobs, create new ones requiring new training, shake the economy in the mean time, and cause huge swaths of civil unrest requiring subsequent reforms all over our tax laws. You cannot simply change a fundamental element of an economy.

peace

While it seems like a very species-egalitarian ideal, there are major issues to contend with, and the least surmountable one is the cooperation of the entire world. The economy is global whether we like it or not, so something like this would cripple a nation on it's own - everyone has to be on board. To be entirely honest, this will not happen no matter how viral it goes on the internet. Consider from the point of view of the indigenous people who don't bother with local currency. What your proposing is not a return to a more natural eco-system based economy, but to bring the rest of the natural world into our system.

I disagree, i think this is exactly the time for something like this to go viral, how else would something like the venus project become so popular? it is just a techy hippy commune.
Their is a big void in idealistic ecconomic structures and their is quite a lot of emphasis atm in destroying the old one, possible natural desasters/wars, heavy recession and riots are probably going to destroy a lot of existing structures so why not sow the seeds of an alternative?
I mean.. sow a bunch of seeds in a forest an none will mature, sow the seeds in a forest that gets burned down an you have a different story.
Local indigenous people? i'm including cats an rare fungus.. i'm sure a bunch of people living on the land can join in just as well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
In fact, if you happened to meet some you could organize some heath-care an provisions without any personal expense, you might even get payed for giving them free stuff.

You have it bang to rights their, i'm not proposing a return to a more natural eco-system base economy, i'm proposing to bring the rest of the natural world into our system, because in doing so it would transform our system into something even better designed than the nature we would be assumbing.

The venus project, for contextual comparison, is an 'enclosed' system; hypothetically a small city could be built up around this ideal and export something in trade rather than pay cash for importing goods (which would be necessary). However, within the confines of the city their system would work fine; incorporating them into the rest of the world is a challenge but not impossible, so the whole world does not have to be on board with it - just respect the project, and possibly be convinced of it's usefulness through example. What you are proposing, however, requires world wide cooperation from stage one, or you will have a local economic sink-hole of destitution. The species we rely on are widespread, so even limiting this system to species which are of domestic use would still require.

No.. It's could be a gradual thing fairly easily, provided whatever country deployed it had control over the banking system and enough political and millitary power to fend off the rest of the pissed off world who will try an deploy trade sanctions etc..

Think about it, with control over all the prices of local food and a finite but growing benefit system, the country is strong, the problem is breaking from the old system without provoking other countrys to deploy subversive tactics.
Like grease for example, they almost broke away, but it could have had quite a negative effect on the rest of europe (grease would have been more than ok) so we bribed their entire media to sway the vote, they didn't stand a chance.

Alternative, the extra slow way would to begin a 'world benefit' charity where they aim to simply give money to everyone in the world, then when it reach's a point where everyone can live on that shit, people might consider including what remains of other species.
Far too slow though.

We would also need a method to track the population and ensure that people aren't going out on their own and hunting/poaching without paying the species their due. This is a logistical nightmare - tracking and responding to poachers just in our current system is difficult enough.

It wouldn't change in the slightest, people who hunt for personal or black market food will continue to do so if they need to, but marketable animal products are already traceable an that's the main thing.

You also have to look at representation for each species, which would reasonably be organized into heirarchies similar to the current organizing method - kingdom, phylum, etc... - and then of course there will have to be some kind of economic balance kept there as well. Can a species be bankrupt from, in say the case of rodents, swarming over an area and doing so much damage? First instance, there is an area of Australia which is periodically beset by a plague of mice which render their fields useless for the season. The monetary damage to these farmers is in the millions, but the damage goes further than just this - do the farmers get compensation from the mice and if so, to what limit? What if the mice do not have 5 million dollars plus damages (because of the loss of income, the farmers' family suffers, they are unable to accomplish repairs, etc).

The thing about the rodents owing the farm.. Well with a reasonable amound of mice their earnings could be harvested but with millions in damages all that would change is that the farmer wouldn't have to pay any compensation when killing mice.
I think i might have got the Cat + Mouse game a bit wrong, it's complicated, but i'm convinced it's workable.

I'm thinking that heirarchies are inherent as you say, but i'm seeing is like.. a human has responcabilitys to its family to it's local government and to it's species, maybe more. these things need paying, so get directly deducted from their living allowance.
Other life is the same, Family, Local Ecology, Species etc..
It's all a bit chunky an not dynamic enough imo but it's these new borders that make all the difference when it comes to global changes.
A bit of jiggery pokery might be needed to increase funding to endangered species and to respect eco-systems within eco-systems as seperate..

The implications of a system like the one your propose are catastrophically far reaching and complicated. The use of currency, the very idea of an economy, hinges on the cooperation of reasoning individuals. Animals do not care about the state of our economy, or the value of our land, our goods, our buildings, etc., and because of this must legally be considered incompetent in terms of any sort of lawsuit against them for, say, destroying ten thousand acres of farm land.

Economey hardly hinges on cooperation, it defines how much of it is possible. Most people don't give a dam about company's profits or the economic state of spain, people don't think more than animals, just a bit differently sometimes.
People are incompetent, that's why we have economics to enslave them like animals.
Seriously though, say a potion of their money was only personally available, so you could only use if if you where of sound mind, wouldn't their then be an economic stimulus to selectively breed or genetically enhance animals that could make choices like that? wouldn't that be a brilliant world?

It's nice to think that people put the bigger picture first, in a hippy commune they do because everyone can be trusted to do the same but the trouble with the bigger picture is that it get's bigger than any single person can comprehend and their will always be someone who see's how base instincts matter more in the rat race of life.

It is a bit far reaching an a tad catastrophic, but let's face it, we'r due one and it pays to be a bit far reaching.

So instead you have representational groups who receive reports and appeals, and who generally organize the committees who use the funds of the species to do whatever eco-friendly work keeps that species going based on it's needs in response to human intervention. What happens when, through lack of necessary research, we make a mistake that is actually more damaging to that species? Do we pay them malpractice damages?

Yes. but if its the same organization that is meant to be dealing with the funds it might cause a bit of trouble, or spawn a competing company to deal with the wealth.

A solution to the kind of problem you are approaching here, doesn't need to be as complicated as a new economy. And assigning a monetary value to everything only suggests that everything can be bought, or paid for when damaged. You'd have corporations buying entire species and setting the value themselves.

We already do all that bad stuff but we either don't admit it or don't tell anyone.
Buying species... well we do that aswell but i was kind of thinking making a base value would open it up and make it more publicly adjustable, a bit socalist i guess but i think thats more of a government task.
You could buy the rights to look after a bunch of sheep, benefiting from their living fund and trade rights but the species of sheep would probably have a higher agenda.

Economics is a quagmire of complicated issues that it seems you may not entirely have a thorough grasp of. It would be worthwhile to study economic systems first, and then approach a solution to the problem you observe based on the reasoning behind other systems. Also look into taxation practices and tax law as well, they vary from culture to culture. You can still think outside the box, but there is a reason why our economies work the way they do, and by understanding how they work and why, you can get an idea of why they tend to perpetuate themselves and how to alter the course to a new heading.

Yet no one i speak to can addiquatly explain it's amazingly complex nature, almost like it's some mysterious god not to be questioned, best left to other people know..
I'm sorry but i've spent my entire life being effected by an economic structure as have everyone else, yet no one knows what it is.
It's not actually that complicated, it's just made out to be mysteriously complex, the important fundamentals are known to us all through our interaction with it.

Tax's; good point. Our governments are services for our localized eco-systems, nothing more, job done, it's been payed.
No more tax's.

Even something a simple as this new fair-tax suggestion in America would take a heinous amount of manpower and nationwide cooperation to implement, to the point that one of the main problems with implementing it is that it would destroy jobs, create new ones requiring new training, shake the economy in the mean time, and cause huge swaths of civil unrest requiring subsequent reforms all over our tax laws. You cannot simply change a fundamental element of an economy.

peace

You can if it actually relieves people of their reasons for unrest.
You can if the majority of people are jobless in the first place.
You can if the short-term loss of such a revolution is insignificant to the overall benefit to humanity an life on this planet.

Just had a thought, earth has always been attributed to coins in tarot, that certainly no accident but do you think that belief contributes to the current system or is simply just good at describing it?

This post has been edited by Draw: Jul 7 2012, 02:01 PM

I'm sorry i've not explained myself well enough, in truth it's mainly because i don't know the entirity of what i'm trying to explain.

Humans are clever, adaptable, strong and in large numbers. We already have the advantage, we don't need an economic one on top of it.

I'd like a future where we wouldn't hinder the evolution of another species that would challenge us an without a system similar to this cats will never have thumbs an humans will be the best forever,
Isn't that depressing? humans being the best but not getting better..

I mean you can rely on peoples greed, we always want more.
so give people everything they need, an get them to supply others needs to gain their wants.

It's the major fault of the Venus Project but it's applicable strength in another.

Peace.

This post has been edited by Draw: Jul 7 2012, 01:50 PM

I'm sorry i've not explained myself well enough, in truth it's mainly because i don't know the entirity of what i'm trying to explain.

Humans are clever, adaptable, strong and in large numbers. We already have the advantage, we don't need an economic one on top of it.

I'd like a future where we wouldn't hinder the evolution of another species that would challenge us an without a system similar to this cats will never have thumbs an humans will be the best forever,
Isn't that depressing? humans being the best but not getting better..

I mean you can rely on peoples greed, we always want more.
so give people everything they need, an get them to supply others needs to gain their wants.

It's the major fault of the Venus Project but it's applicable strength in another.

Peace.

That's a kind sentiment towards other species, however, don't overlook the fact that it was nature that put us here in the first place. Perhaps there is a reason this happened at all. It's fine to think that because we are the dominant species on our planet, as far as we know, we therefore have a responsible to give any other species the same chance - but what if that is not correct thinking. Perhaps our species survived, beat the odds, and clawed our way to the top and have earned the right to be here.

We do need to be good stewards of the planet. We should be conservative in our consumption of resources. We should be a global family and attempt to ensure that everyone is able to attain to an ever greater net happiness in life.

We should also recognize that we may continuously try to separate ourselves from nature - but we can't, we won't, there isn't anything but nature on earth. We are part of the cycle whether we want to be or not.

There is a great deal of government involvement in the above proposal. Basically direct involvement in virtually every aspect of our interaction with the natural world. This has historically never been a good thing.

Just giving everyone what they need, rather than assisting them in attaining to something in order to fulfill their needs, says two things. First, it says that you are able to survive in this world just because you were born - no need to work or contribute in any way, because being born was enough, and you will be provided for as long as you are alive. That slaps mother nature right in the face, when the goal here seems to be to work more in sync with nature. You have to work to live. You have to get a job, or hunt, or farm, etc., living is a struggle and it has always been, since the dawn of time. We've been giving aid in the US to people who do not contribute to society at all, and so far it has been a terrible idea, serving to actually dumb down populations and encourage them to make more babies and perpetuate a terrible cycle.

It sounds cold, and inhumane, I know, but you should have to struggle to survive in this world, survival should not be given to you. If this was so, we would be more careful. And it is because of the complacency that has taken us over in the west that we feel entitled to so much, including natural resources.

No, any model based on the idea of allowances for everyone is guaranteed to cause more problems than it could possibly solve. If you think human greed is a problem, imagine the extent of human laziness under those conditions. There are plenty of incentives for people to contribute to society although living off of government aid here - they don't, because those incentives don't mean anything to them personally. The government will never stop supporting them, so there is no reason to change how they are living.

peace

That's a kind sentiment towards other species, however, don't overlook the fact that it was nature that put us here in the first place. Perhaps there is a reason this happened at all. It's fine to think that because we are the dominant species on our planet, as far as we know, we therefore have a responsible to give any other species the same chance - but what if that is not correct thinking. Perhaps our species survived, beat the odds, and clawed our way to the top and have earned the right to be here.

We are only precariously here, not shear luck as im sure you would agree but something like it, species have risen an fallen before, we are not alone in this universe and it is not through our single species that we would be anything more than a curiosity to them should we meet one-day.
We are not strong enough or wise enough to stand alone in our universe.
Genetic engineering will take us to higher heights no doubt, but as a species we have nothing to challenge us on the journey, having no greater challenge than our selves will result in a species not capable of dealing with another.
Not speaking of a galactic war or anything like that but rather that shear inter-species communication will be much harder if we forget to evolve our siblings along with us.

We do need to be good stewards of the planet. We should be conservative in our consumption of resources. We should be a global family and attempt to ensure that everyone is able to attain to an ever greater net happiness in life.

We should also recognize that we may continuously try to separate ourselves from nature - but we can't, we won't, there isn't anything but nature on earth. We are part of the cycle whether we want to be or not.

What is happynes when it's cost is anothers?

We are a part of nature, why not let nature be a part of us?

There is a great deal of government involvement in the above proposal. Basically direct involvement in virtually every aspect of our interaction with the natural world. This has historically never been a good thing.

This is a troubling fact. Our governments are ridiculous, corrupt and ineffective.
I have a proposal concerning this, although it's not something that can be explained here, I would try an avoid making this any more sensationalist than it already is.

Maybe some of the key factors concerning this new economy could be set by either a higher separate body or be decided in a more organic nature by the progress of the system itself.
Self-containment would be preferable after all.

Just giving everyone what they need, rather than assisting them in attaining to something in order to fulfill their needs, says two things. First, it says that you are able to survive in this world just because you were born - no need to work or contribute in any way, because being born was enough, and you will be provided for as long as you are alive. That slaps mother nature right in the face, when the goal here seems to be to work more in sync with nature. You have to work to live. You have to get a job, or hunt, or farm, etc., living is a struggle and it has always been, since the dawn of time. We've been giving aid in the US to people who do not contribute to society at all, and so far it has been a terrible idea, serving to actually dumb down populations and encourage them to make more babies and perpetuate a terrible cycle.

It sounds cold, and inhumane, I know, but you should have to struggle to survive in this world, survival should not be given to you. If this was so, we would be more careful. And it is because of the complacency that has taken us over in the west that we feel entitled to so much, including natural resources.

No, any model based on the idea of allowances for everyone is guaranteed to cause more problems than it could possibly solve. If you think human greed is a problem, imagine the extent of human laziness under those conditions. There are plenty of incentives for people to contribute to society although living off of government aid here - they don't, because those incentives don't mean anything to them personally. The government will never stop supporting them, so there is no reason to change how they are living.

peace

Well this brings me to the final and most compelling argument i have yet to broach adequately.

What are we becoming right now? In the UK we have a very similar system, people who don't work are having more baby's than those that do, it's a tempting choice for a teenage girl believe me, so few opportunity's to make something of yourself except the possibility of making a new life.

It's an uncomfortable fact that our governments only tactic to sway our evolution is to encourage anyone with a violent temperament to join the army, only to then send them into unwinable wars for extended periods of time.
Breeding underachieving pacifists is probably seen as a good thing, easier to rule.

Britain used to be filled with brave noble men with integrity valor and countless other virtues
They almost all died after loads of wars.
Someone probably noticed how easier the place was to rule without them.
So it continues.

All that's off topic speculation, so to the point i was getting at, what would be better..

I do believe benefits for everyone is a good thing, we don't need for people to work, technology has provided, sick, lame an lazy people still deserve to live, they are easily provided for.
What we need work for is for people to prove how good they are at being parents.


Say a person who has never worked has a baby, that baby can pay for it'self, or rather the parent can spends that money on it's behalf.
Say that person then has another baby, that baby still has money, but the parent isn't allowed to spend a penny,
If their is another parent involved who has also never worked, they could spend the money for the second child, but neither could spend on behalf of a third.
If they get stuck with a big family they can't provide for, they will have to ask other people to liberate their extra children s money for them, inviting them to inspect their family life an presumably causing an amount of shame.

I mean when someone works they automatically contribute to their family right? well if someone wants more than a small family without other people interfering they are going to have to work, simple as.
With money meaning a whole lot more in this system, that would breed a very worthy race of people.

If you can't rely on people's greed to overcome their laziness, you can rely on their want to breed.
People don't need to struggle to survive in this world.
Surviving doesn't need to be the reason for a species to progress, the carrot is just as good as the wip.

Disturbing thing is.. simply limiting the benefits of large family's is possible now, the fact our governments have chosen to do as they have speaks of tragic ineptitude or sinister malpractice.

I think their is a better idea anyway, i just can't remember it or it never occured to me.
My mind is numb. I think i'm going to have to re-read this whole thing.

Blessings.

This post has been edited by Draw: Jul 8 2012, 04:14 PM

Well i should probably sumerise what i can of this idea with as little politics+opinions as i can.

So for the perspective of one who has not read the rest of the thread.

It's like this, old economy's used a gold standard, this is because their isn't loads of it around and digging up new stuff happens at a fairly slow an steady rate.
Because you can't have money easily reproduced by anyone, this worked for a little while.
The system in place ATM isn't based round any finite resource but simply loaned out to country's banks under various regulations, it's still hard to reproduce and effectively a finite substance, but it's now more of a mathematical resource (just to simplify).

One of the major problems in both systems is that their enclosed systems, as in their circulation through our society never really intersects with the rest of the planets wealth outside human ownership.
It's a strictly human concept ATM and it's what drives almost all human accomplishment, to make a building, car, dam, or anything requires money traded from other humans for tasks etc..

As any biologist will tell you, their isn't a creature on this planet that isn't in some way reliant on another so an enclosed system like this isn't truly accounting for the wealth of the planet or the tasks performed my mankind, the commerce between species is almost totally unaccounted for an thus un-rewarded for.

Plant's supply the oxygen we breath, Fungi+Microbes break down all our waist and countless Animals supply our nutrition and they all supply us with the acceleration of our evolution through their varied challenging nature.
We are very much dependent on the eco-systems we live in, yet we can't trade with it's parts, only our own.
It's not just unfair to these other species, it's also unfair to us, people instinctively care for other species an in doing so has ensured our survival up until now with their charity.
Charity should have no place in society, it should be woven into the fabric of our economy.

All money really needs to exist is an ease of transport an un-reproducible quality and a steady increase in it's production.
With technology as it is all these quality's are easily done to a very high standard and are being done
The controversial topic is where that money begins it's journey, how it is given to the community and how it's flow effects the efforts of the people in it.
It very much starts at the top and trickles down so that it may flow up again ATM when in reality it should start at our roots, work up and then around again.

We are a proud and incredibly adapt species with many great advantages but our economy should be working outside just our species, it is the most powerful tool ever created, it should not be our's alone.
We don't need a greater advantage, because it becomes our flaw, in limiting the scope of moneys use's to our own we don't make good use of the only real wealth this planet has known.
Life it'self.

What i propose is a sourcing money a bit like a benefit system, like a living allowance, given to all living species on this planet monetary resource as a right.
Now i know what you must be thinking, what is a sheep or a shrub going to do with money? they can't even talk!
Well it's not like we don't have to look after the finances of people with diminished responsibility, old young an mad people have people who spend their money on their behalf's and their is legal systems in place that protect the sanctity of that interchange (most of the time) and with mobile phones basically having all it takes to provide absolute visual proof of an event taking place in a certain location, it becomes an awful lot easier.

All creatures great an small have needs, our's have become quite easily fulfilled with technology, making massive amounts of unemployment for the practically skilled among us.
To derive all money from all living beings would tap an awesome amount of wealth and job-prospects where-ever you are in the world an whatever your position.

Not only that but money would loose it's label as 'the source of all evil' because it would then become synchronous with almost all the compassionate tasks you could think of.
The very effect of it on the psychology of the individuals obtaining it would be massively beneficial.

For most of the life-forms on the planet the finance could never personally be spent, but a portion of it would be set aside for benefiting the local eco-system they inhabit.
For a gold-fish this would enable people to look after the pond, for a human this would enable people to finance local government without the need for tax's.

You may be thinking, 'People would just be lazy an choose not to work' well i'd say that people with that attitude while still responsible for their own finances are simply proving their incapacity to care for another's finances, which would include their own children's finances.
No one would want someone else to dictate what their child benefit should be used for so being working parents will become a far more of a viable option.

Also, almost everyone wants more than they need, it's in our nature and when people need not worry, they can create and do some wonderful things for the community an be rewarded for practically any of it that benefits another life.

A system like this could be implemented in only a few ways, either the banks go under entirely and all current depts an savings are made null+void (causing a lot of world wide chaos) or an attempt is made to wean off the old systems of money injection while slowly increasing the amount of world benefits that individuals receive.
Their is an awful lot of money within the top 2% that could be 'liberated' for use in keeping peoples savings+investments safe during the changeover, but whatever happens the current method of creating money out of nothing will have to be phased out quite quickly.

~What i'm proposing is not that our economy should mirror nature but that nature should be included within our economy so as to transform it into something far better.

I'm still missing some vital point, i am aware of this and it shall be addressed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Lighten.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif)

I think the current (American) Federal Reserve prints money based on speculations involving domestic and international trade and production, which are finite standards. Economies can be based on abstractions without automatically being baseless. Personally, I agree with Noam Chomsky's idea of our modern neo-liberal economy, which promotes "laissez faire" practices only in popular theory and talk, not practice. The American based global economy seems to be centrally controlled and strictly enforced through organizations such as the WTO and UN, which would probably stop any of these movements while they are in control.

I wish I knew more about economics so I could talk about this. Have you seen Nick Hanauer's recently banned TED talk? His perspective is pretty rare for someone with his resume (co-founded amazon.com).

These ideas would be incredibly difficult to establish, but goodluck. Talking about them is the first step.

This post has been edited by ☞Tomber☜: Jul 11 2012, 06:28 PM

I think your probably right about their ability to stop something like this in the immediate future.

It's an ideal, i think good to establish as a long term goal, it's hard to understand and iron out without either writing a 'futuristic' novel or designing a bad ass computer game.
Of which i have been wanting to do since an early age, got some really good ideas but not the situation to pursue them, really must pull my finger out an chase my dreams.

Thanks for the links an stuff, lots of food for thought their.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well i've given it some thought and i've got a few ideas rattling around.

Trouble with the economy we have now and the ideas i've presented is that they don't flow properly, money needs to go round an round.
Stagnation is something to avoid.

Also.. it seems to me that their should be more than one type of money, different moeny for different things.. so...

How about three?
One for food an shelter that you can't inherit when you die.
Another for giving an gathering information.. you can't run what i've proposed without people obsessively finding lifeforms to accurately proof document..
A Third for the lasting accomplishments, the art that's viewed billions of times.. the buildings that last for thousands of years.. sausage making machines etc.. inheritable.

In a way it's like Sulpher Mercury an Salt.

I don't think something like this could be run my any single government, it would have to be maintained by the people who use it in an unquestionably fair way.
Their is no room for power hungry individuals/nations when it comes to this.

I was thinking.. maybe some extraordinary website/dispersed/cloud program thingy with a bunch of stuff i ain't gona mention could host the information acquired from the devices (proofed with GPS)
and be all community run. Mercury.
The sulpher could effectively start as food vouchers gained from the site, not much value for starters but with time (and people/company's paying for information retrieval/censorship) the value would grow quite quickly.
Salt would basically be normal money but with time it could transmute to suit the new economic structure.
It would be kind of fitting that while sulpher an mercury where kind of 'world wide' currency's the salt would most likey stay localized.

Naturaly i'm a bit caigie about the technical details but can you see where i'm coming from?

Well i think my plans almost complete.. it might be late but at least the tricky bits are done.

It should be quite an adventure, to try an create a worldwide currency for organic matter an promote conventional currency to only deal with non-organic resources.
Some kick-ass technology structuring the known world their after in a fair, unbiased, informed and progressive manor.

Trouble is, people think it's already being done, it's not, their are several groups doing things _similar_ but chances are their gona be crap, epic but essentially not enough.

I'm not really worried about people stealing my idea, because as it stands they have a shallow comparison to the real thing,
if they do it right somehow, i'd be pleased, i'd have predicted it, i've got loads of ideas, it's the sell-out half-arsed job's that cheese me off.

If i have to spend years cleaning up after their mess i'll start that job by being very angry and making their lives very unhappy/short.

On the bright side, i think i've proved to myself that paradise on earth is possible within a lifetime, if it doesn't happen then i've only got myself to blame (in one metaphysical sense or another)
My inadequacy's as an individual are my own responsibility to transcend, but any help would be appreciated (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

So if their are any genius programmers out their who want to save the world (or are already in the process), or you know of any...
e-mail me at [email protected] an we can set up some secure communications.

Long Rant Over.

This post has been edited by Draw: Nov 14 2012, 08:01 AM

To be fair, no one use that e-mail, i genuinely can't think of a secure way to talk freely any more, all to risky.

bugger.

I've never been very sure weather i'm just predicting something, reading minds, thinking or most likely just picking up the waisted ideas of others an piecing them together.

Words are like sonar in a way, because whenever someone reads them they can't help but alter their meaning when doing so.
An i know meaning an i keep a mental note of what certain words mean one minute so i can see what they mean the second, it's awfully interesting.

Their is a lot of talk about government conspiracy's to fake or 'ride' a disaster/war to implement some kind of 'new world order'
An i'm pretty sure my own government knows the potential of adding another type of currency since in WW2 food vouchers were very popular and seemed to add to the sense of social cohesion at the time.
It could make the world a much nicer place, that's a fact.
However.. should they try an do something similar.. it may seem a really good thing but unless the power is in the hands of the people, it's going to be in the wrong hands.

We live in an Apex of Times, some things done here can't be undone an will shape the future of the planet forever.
If a traditional governing body is in control of this thing, it will rot to the core make no mistake.

I still think my ideas fairly original, but that's only because of parts of it haven't been discussed.

I believe in the theory of democracy, an knowing what can be done technologically atm i also believe that it can actually be achieved.
The Sanctity of this thing is of the up-most important's, it must be as pristine as humanly possible.

Self-regulation is the only way, if it gets puppetered at any point we'll kick ourselves for a thousand lifetimes.
Their is no need for servers, their is no need for a single country's dominance relative to another's.

I blatantly haven't got enough time to make my own version before it kicks off an the 'official' version is unveiled,
just remember who's driving and where you want to be going.