PDA

View Full Version : A world where money is obsolete and is united over one international governing body?



Kamakazii101
19 May 2009, 07:51pm
I really feel that this needs to get out there. There is an issue going on that quite frankly may destroy human civilization. The issue is just the way the world itself functions and society as it is today.. I can invision a world where money is no longer used. An example being if you need something then you just ask for it. In more simple terms we really don't need currency. Just think about it! Education would hit highs, schools no longer have a budget to worry about. Homelessness would not be an issue, homes would be provided directly from the government. Food would be distributed equally. EXTROARDINARY leaps would be made in science and space exploration. They would no longer we limited to what they could do. Now very expensive anitmatter could be mass produced and used to revolutionize space travel and our understanding of the universe. Not quite faster than light travel, but definatley a huge change to the conventional rocket boosters we use today. Solar powered machines could be perfected and mass produced and reducing pollution. Scientific research could be used to discover new ways to use renewable energies. Or eventually converting to antimatter, which is 100% efficient compared to nuclear power which is about 2% efficient. Eventually if we do not rid ourselves of money, unite the planet under one governing body, and settle our differences, we will never make it off this planet. However, there are endless rewards to this huge change, it will be the biggest thing to happen to humanity. This will revolutionize our world and the way we live it. People will eventually learn to live to better humanity instead of meeting personal needs which is common in our world (greed, selfishness, powerhungry, etc.)If everyone works together in this future world, we will better our existence as people. I just want to know from you guys what YOU think this would do for us. Not only that, but whether or not this would actually work. I would like to hear any issues that would come up if this were to happen, I know there are many. I want your opinions if you would like to give them.

andre1028
19 May 2009, 08:05pm
http://www.williambowles.info/images/nwo.jpg

http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/a3/6e/c5bce04843d0958b32978d59d86a.jpeg

Italian Jew
19 May 2009, 08:13pm
I really feel that this needs to get out there. There is an issue going on that quite frankly may destroy human civilization. The issue is just the way the world itself functions and society as it is today.. I can invision a world where money is no longer used. An example being if you need something then you just ask for it. In more simple terms we really don't need currency. Just think about it! Education would hit highs, schools no longer have a budget to worry about. Homelessness would not be an issue, homes would be provided directly from the government. Food would be distributed equally. EXTROARDINARY leaps would be made in science and space exploration. They would no longer we limited to what they could do. Now very expensive anitmatter could be mass produced and used to revolutionize space travel and our understanding of the universe. Not quite faster than light travel, but definatley a huge change to the conventional rocket boosters we use today. Solar powered machines could be perfected and mass produced and reducing pollution. Scientific research could be used to discover new ways to use renewable energies. Or eventually converting to antimatter, which is 100% efficient compared to nuclear power which is about 2% efficient. Eventually if we do not rid ourselves of money, unite the planet under one governing body, and settle our differences, we will never make it off this planet. However, there are endless rewards to this huge change, it will be the biggest thing to happen to humanity. This will revolutionize our world and the way we live it. People will eventually learn to live to better humanity instead of meeting personal needs which is common in our world (greed, selfishness, powerhungry, etc.)If everyone works together in this future world, we will better our existence as people. I just want to know from you guys what YOU think this would do for us. Not only that, but whether or not this would actually work. I would like to hear any issues that would come up if this were to happen, I know there are many. I want your opinions if you would like to give them.

A little too optimistic. There is a finite supply of resources that we can currently access, so you would be expecting people to share everything, which isn't in our normal behavior. We would run out of resources very quickly and none of the advancements you suggested would be made. Until there is a way to remove the bonds of a finite supply of resources, money or some form of exchange will be necessary.

Other countries have tried this and had to settle for lesser things. What people called communism couldn't truly be communism because of the need to interact with countries that were regarded as capitalist. Because they had to sacrifice many principles that would make the theory work, their version failed horribly. You are proposing that all people and countries would set aside their beliefs and differences to embrace what can be considered a communist or socialist idea, but I highly doubt that humanity would set aside everything they have believed in for the better part of recorded history for this. Even if they did, the reason stated above would ensure failure.

Sounds too Star Trek-ish in my opinion.

I don't think using currency would lead to a definite end of society. Money is not the problem. people are. If a society is going to die out, it is the people to blame. Money could create greed, but without money, people would be greedy over other things (power for instance). One group might try to prevent another group from receiving an equal share, and you'd have a new form of currency or class structure created that would result back to the previous system you sought to remove. Shit will happen no matter what we try to put in place to stop it.

Kamakazii101
19 May 2009, 08:15pm
Indeed, we are only human. With such a ratical change to the way the world operates its success would be short lived....everything would spiral out of control. People would loose hold of understanding and we would end up blowing us all up no matter what we do. Need it be said that we've doomed ourselves? More simply....we're completely f*cked and there isnt a damn thing we can do other than ride the one way express train towards the eventual collapse of society. But the trick is you'll need a disaster to learn from, and this will teach us (in my opinion at least). We can only hope that this will be avoided; we are nearing a new world war, but that's a completely different topic.

andre1028
19 May 2009, 08:19pm
We'll all die off eventually. Something like this will either speed it up or halt it. But I don't think any political leader wants to take that risk.

Kamakazii101
19 May 2009, 08:23pm
A little too optimistic. There is a finite supply of resources that we can currently access, so you would be expecting people to share everything, which isn't in our normal behavior. We would run out of resources very quickly and none of the advancements you suggested would be made. Until there is a way to remove the bonds of a finite supply of resources, money or some form of exchange will be necessary.

Yes that is also very true, I have to agree 100%. That would be a significant hurdle. I could not imagine my outlook happening for hundreds, maybe thousands of years if it's even possible at all. It's not in human nature to work together so closely. Something big would have to happen to us for our eyes to open. Even then we may never have the resources, as you've implied, to move forward. It would all be depleted amongst the billions of humans. The day when humans coexistence in peace and can actually work together is when maybe, just maybe, this may happen. It's a very deep topic.

I would certainly hope people wouldn't put aside there beliefs, it's up to them with which god they may choose, or whatever it may be. I am only implying that us as people would need to put things such as racism and poverty aside. However, this may never happen. If you understand what I mean?

Money is definately not the biggest problem, and agree 100% thats it the people themselves. I just think that there could be a lot more things we could do with ourselves if we weren't bounded by a currency.

Drox
19 May 2009, 10:46pm
Think this is called Socialism?

Altho it has its advantages, but with it what do you lose? I will admit I am a big believer of state rights here in America which is far from what this thread is suggesting, but I also believe in some aspects of this idea aswell. But we must be mindful of what we agree to and what comes along with it to not hand over any freedoms that may be infringed with the idea. Money leads to greed and suffering of millions, but its also this world we enjoy and live in, we must decide what we want to give up and move aside to allow this idea to evolve. To be honest, it will never happen under consenting minds, not in my lifetime anyway.

VirDeBello
19 May 2009, 11:00pm
Honestly I wouldn't want this to happen really.....like a wise man once said. We strive through chaos and where ever there is desperation, there is opportunity. We need the balance of good and evil. Just like with almost everything else in life, there has to be a balance. A utopia is an unreachable dream.

Lux
20 May 2009, 03:43am
Lol I think someone's been smoking some whacked up shit.

Jaffa
20 May 2009, 04:49am
Sounds too Star Trek-ish in my opinion.

LOL exactly my thinking.

But seriously, if thats how you feel, go make it happen, don't just sit back and watch.

tank40175
20 May 2009, 07:10am
In an ideal situation, this would all be great. However, in the real world, I don't see our world ever operating without some sort of currency. The leaps and bounds of humanity would leave us without the garbge man picking up the trash, cause he won't do it without a paycheck. Unless you were suggesting that people are forced to certian positions. Because there are jobs out there that noone would do just for the better of mankind. Humans have operated with some sort of currency, or barter ever since we needed to eat or survive.

Delirium
20 May 2009, 07:51am
Sounds like someones been reading to much Karl Marx.

LegalSmash
20 May 2009, 08:27am
I really feel that this needs to get out there. There is an issue going on that quite frankly may destroy human civilization. The issue is just the way the world itself functions and society as it is today.. I can invision a world where money is no longer used. An example being if you need something then you just ask for it. In more simple terms we really don't need currency. Just think about it! Education would hit highs, schools no longer have a budget to worry about. Homelessness would not be an issue, homes would be provided directly from the government. Food would be distributed equally. EXTROARDINARY leaps would be made in science and space exploration. They would no longer we limited to what they could do. Now very expensive anitmatter could be mass produced and used to revolutionize space travel and our understanding of the universe. Not quite faster than light travel, but definatley a huge change to the conventional rocket boosters we use today. Solar powered machines could be perfected and mass produced and reducing pollution. Scientific research could be used to discover new ways to use renewable energies. Or eventually converting to antimatter, which is 100% efficient compared to nuclear power which is about 2% efficient. Eventually if we do not rid ourselves of money, unite the planet under one governing body, and settle our differences, we will never make it off this planet. However, there are endless rewards to this huge change, it will be the biggest thing to happen to humanity. This will revolutionize our world and the way we live it. People will eventually learn to live to better humanity instead of meeting personal needs which is common in our world (greed, selfishness, powerhungry, etc.)If everyone works together in this future world, we will better our existence as people. I just want to know from you guys what YOU think this would do for us. Not only that, but whether or not this would actually work. I would like to hear any issues that would come up if this were to happen, I know there are many. I want your opinions if you would like to give them.

Well, I'll try to answer as best as possible here. I think this sounds like a great Star Trek story, and should Humanity put aside things like defining human rights, gender inequality, racial and religious hatred, and different prespectives on most subjects, it MAY be possible, AFTER EVERYONE who lived with an inkling of any of the aforementioned have died and gone off to a lesser/better place.

Utopia, which is what this sounds like is unattainable, because humans have desire and avarice. Its pretty, just like natalie portman, but unattainable, much like you will never nail her, humanity is too fickle to achieve this.

I'm getting the longchairs and Yuengling, someone get the steaks, and lets watch the world burn.

Red
20 May 2009, 09:57am
The spreading of capitalism and the niceties that come with is the first step to reduce the number of pure 3rd world countries. Once there are no/very few 3rd world countries left then we will begin to see an even greater (EU is already a small step) shift towards this global government.

Whether we have a capitalist/frontier type world government or socialist/communist/everyone is equal bullshit government will be the big question.

zero
20 May 2009, 01:47pm
Wouldn't one international governing body essentially be a monopoly? A monopoly, whether it's in the private sector or a governing body can't be a good thing.

Kamakazii101
20 May 2009, 02:41pm
Now that I think about it, this almost seems exactly like Star Trek. Which is wierd because I wasn't even thinking about Star Trek at the time lol.

What I had in mind wasn't necessarily ONE body, but more of a government that operates much like a democracy, but isnt centered around one person, and instead it branches down into smaller individual groups that still hold the original laws and ideas of the larger counterpart. I am definately not refering to communism, as the government technically DOES NOT own the land, take away personal rights, etc. So really it would be like today, with the variety of countries we have but they are all kept in check and operate under the same governing body. They withhold the same ideas without the sacrafice of personal decisions like religion, freedom of speech, etc.

Drox
20 May 2009, 03:26pm
Now that I think about it, this almost seems exactly like Star Trek. Which is wierd because I wasn't even thinking about Star Trek at the time lol.

What I had in mind wasn't necessarily ONE body, but more of a government that operates much like a democracy, but isnt centered around one person, and instead it branches down into smaller individual groups that still hold the original laws and ideas of the larger counterpart. I am definately not refering to communism, as the government technically DOES NOT own the land, take away personal rights, etc. So really it would be like today, with the variety of countries we have but they are all kept in check and operate under the same governing body. They withhold the same ideas without the sacrafice of personal decisions like religion, freedom of speech, etc.

Never will happen, like someone has said in the past "The world will have one government one day, the only question is will it be done by consent, or conquest." For this to even happen, the whole world would have to consent to no currency in which everyone could agree to and let technology take over most of what needs to be done where labor is no longer needed to maintain lives of the people. Altho to convince the whole world to give up their own and each nation sovereignty with consent would be impossible, so the idea dies before it takes off.

Slavic
20 May 2009, 09:35pm
Never will happen, like someone has said in the past "The world will have one government one day, the only question is will it be done by consent, or conquest." For this to even happen, the whole world would have to consent to no currency in which everyone could agree to and let technology take over most of what needs to be done where labor is no longer needed to maintain lives of the people. Altho to convince the whole world to give up their own and each nation sovereignty with consent would be impossible, so the idea dies before it takes off.

Give every world leader a DMT blast off into the spirit realm, then maybe they will start thinking about the bigger picture.

PotshotPolka
20 May 2009, 09:39pm
Wouldn't one international governing body essentially be a monopoly? A monopoly, whether it's in the private sector or a governing body can't be a good thing.

Countries compete through wars, not waging superior products or marketing.

zero
20 May 2009, 09:45pm
Countries compete through wars, not waging superior products or marketing.

I'd think that this is only partially true in today's world though. Couldn't one argue that a country needs to compete economically and culturally to retain its citizen's, not through wars but through other means. How would a country survive or even collect revenue if its citizens are leaving?

I can see this at the state level. Living here in Colorado, I've seen the governor take certain measures to bring more people to our state ("marketing" to California it seems).

PotshotPolka
21 May 2009, 04:32am
I'd think that this is only partially true in today's world though. Couldn't one argue that a country needs to compete economically and culturally to retain its citizen's, not through wars but through other means. How would a country survive or even collect revenue if its citizens are leaving?

I can see this at the state level. Living here in Colorado, I've seen the governor take certain measures to bring more people to our state ("marketing" to California it seems).

Which then in turn causes disruptions elsewhere. Countries are just places, and remember governments make states what they are, sovereign. Governments are a monopoly unto themselves in a country, and have exclusive rights to certain actions, i.e. trade embargos, immigration, tariffs, or declaring war.

I could argue having only one state would allow capital and people to move more freely, tech, prevent the need for an aggressive foreign policy and military-industrial complex (it's actually a term, not a hard-on man-splooge gamer thing from MGS4) and could technically have more overarching power to help alleviate problems like say, genocide, without having to fear obstruction because it isn't the state's jurisdiction.

zero
21 May 2009, 07:51am
Which then in turn causes disruptions elsewhere. Countries are just places, and remember governments make states what they are, sovereign. Governments are a monopoly unto themselves in a country, and have exclusive rights to certain actions, i.e. trade embargos, immigration, tariffs, or declaring war.

I could argue having only one state would allow capital and people to move more freely, tech, prevent the need for an aggressive foreign policy and military-industrial complex (it's actually a term, not a hard-on man-splooge gamer thing from MGS4) and could technically have more overarching power to help alleviate problems like say, genocide, without having to fear obstruction because it isn't the state's jurisdiction.

This is getting slightly off topic, but I think its an interesting conversation. I agree with you partially. Yes, countries are just places. However, government's are organizations just like Microsoft is an organization. As for your statement, "Governments are a monopoly unto themselves in a country". This is why I'd love to see more power given to the states and less to the feds. As an organization becomes larger (government or private), it becomes more corrupt, more inefficient, etc. That's also why I'm against one international governmental body.

PotshotPolka
21 May 2009, 03:56pm
This is getting slightly off topic, but I think its an interesting conversation. I agree with you partially. Yes, countries are just places. However, government's are organizations just like Microsoft is an organization. As for your statement, "Governments are a monopoly unto themselves in a country". This is why I'd love to see more power given to the states and less to the feds. As an organization becomes larger (government or private), it becomes more corrupt, more inefficient, etc. That's also why I'm against one international governmental body.

Well if this one international body existed only to prevent another's existance, and really did nothing but prevent actual conflicts between nations and borders it would be ideal in my opinion. But then again that's what the UN is for!

LegalSmash
21 May 2009, 05:06pm
Well if this one international body existed only to prevent another's existance, and really did nothing but prevent actual conflicts between nations and borders it would be ideal in my opinion. But then again that's what the UN is for and failing at HORRIBLY!!!!


Fixed.

Nighthawk
11 Jun 2009, 10:15am
Sounds like hell!

Ultra Freemarket activist- out! :P

CandleJack
11 Jun 2009, 10:17am
Sounds like hell!

Ultra Freemarket activist- out! :P

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss260/JedimaSterTSW/Picard.jpg