Is a utopian society without money and competition possible?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zwest135
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thoughts
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the viability of a utopian society without money and competition, highlighting the flaws of the current socio-economic system. Key points include the fact that 50% of the global population lives on less than $2 a day, while 1% controls 40% of the wealth, indicating an ineffective distribution of resources. Participants argue that the principles of scarcity and competition lead to systemic issues like corruption and technological unemployment, where automation replaces human labor, potentially leaving many without purchasing power. The conversation concludes with a call for a new socio-economic model that prioritizes cooperation over competition, suggesting that technological advancements could enable a system where goods are produced abundantly and distributed freely.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of socio-economic systems and their impact on wealth distribution
  • Familiarity with concepts of scarcity and competition in economics
  • Knowledge of technological unemployment and automation trends
  • Awareness of alternative economic models and cooperative frameworks
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of automation on labor markets and economic structures
  • Explore alternative economic models such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) and resource-based economies
  • Investigate historical examples of cooperative societies and their outcomes
  • Study the role of technology in shaping future socio-economic systems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for economists, social theorists, policymakers, and anyone interested in the future of work and economic systems, particularly in the context of automation and wealth distribution.

  • #31
zwest135 said:
The incentive will be looking at what you have provided to you and deciding its not sufficient. So you innovate something better, and if it is scientifically proven that it is better, it goes into production and everyone gets what you designed.

You guys understand that everything in society can be optimized right? There can also be different versions, however, they would be the best produced available. We have so many options in our society because of the monetary system. We often trade efficency for less work.

Everything should be looked at as a technical problem in society. For example: You would not solve the immigration problem with laws and restrictions. That is insuffiecient. You would solve it by designing a system that can provide for and support all the incoming poeple.

Society has got to elevate man to his highest potential. We have got to design our society to work for people, and provide for people with technology.
My biggest question is, let's say you design such a system, what do you propose to do with the people who choose not to join or participate in your "system"?

Would their freedom to work and trade among themselves be taken away?

Would they be imprisoned for refusing to join and practicing capitalism among themselves? Would you use force against anyone who worked outside your system for themselves?

If not, then fine, do what you want, just leave me out of it. I have no problem with any economic system in which participation is completely voluntary.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
zwest135 said:
You know starvation is a big problem in our world right? You know a lot of people don't have fresh water? I think a lot of the western world is very ignorant to how bad things are. I mean 40% of the world is living under $2 a day. That sounds pretty bad to me. The middle east, africa and asia are often in states of conflict and and civil wars because they are in such desperate situations. They would not be fighting if they had the standard of living that europe and america have.
I agree with you here. My point was that it was much worse in the past. And it seems like the things that have made it better today are the things that you're against.
The improvements in China and elsewhere happened because of the things you seem to be against. The same things that are the reason for the higher standard of living in America and Europe.
 
  • #33
zwest135 said:
You know starvation is a big problem in our world right? You know a lot of people don't have fresh water? I think a lot of the western world is very ignorant to how bad things are. I mean 40% of the world is living under $2 a day. That sounds pretty bad to me. The middle east, africa and asia are often in states of conflict and and civil wars because they are in such desperate situations. They would not be fighting if they had the standard of living that europe and america have.
Spouting off statistics in no way supports the feasability of your way of thinking. The $2 dollars a day doesn't even have any meaning in relation to our cost of living, so it is a useless statistic. Is poverty bad, sure, but that doesn't support what you are proposing.

You have not been able to give one credible answer to how you would obtain this "utopia".

This thread is pointless.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
11K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
9K
Replies
56
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 117 ·
4
Replies
117
Views
15K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
14K