Will we ever be without currency?

[viranimus]

Always be in a capitalist society? No. Fact is that the economic turmoil over the last couple years is a direct effect of the fact that capitalism is invariably a locust economic system and we have been LONG past the point of its peak effectiveness and the troubles are specifically because that system can only support itself for so long when mass production is the most efficient means of production. What this means is that we are currently in a state where we have to manufacture artificial scarcity to keep the gears of capitalism turning.

And as long as someone has vested interest in maintaining that status quo that allows them to have superiority over others there will be no willing abdication of money and the power that goes with it. So it is unfortunate but there is little or no chance of a nice peaceable transition into such a future.

Technology repeatedly keeps forcing us against this glass ceiling and as the next set of technological revolutions starting with 3D/Bio printing it might well be the impasse that capitalism can no longer quell the populous by duping it into thinking it needs shit it doesnt. Eventually it WILL come to an end because while it was a logical and even good idea for its industrial revolution time, it has entirely too many failings that it can never hope to address and we are already pushing the boundaries of how far into a broken and flawed system people can exist in.

 

[spartan231490]

My friend and I were having a debate earlier about whether the human race will ever lose the need for currency due to hypothetical scientific advancements?

I argued that with enough scientific and technological developments we might develop a Star Trek-like society where people do things because it's what they love, and there will be no need for currency when science advances to a certain level because we might have robots to the menial rap jobs, wihilst people just go into fields for jobs because it's what they love, and due to infinite resources and technology, there will be no need for currency (obviously highly hypothetical, but this is a hypothetical argument).

However he said that no matter how far science goes, replicators, infinite crops and energy, advanced robots etc. there will always be currency and we will always be a capitalist society.

What is your opinion (be srs pls)

Of course there will always be currency. It's basic economic theory and basic physics, no supply is infinite, even if we have replicator the amount of mass/energy is always constant so the supply is still limited. This means that only a limited number of the people will be able to have certain things. It also means that from a resources standpoint, opportunity cost still exists. Therefore, you would need some way to regulate purchases and manufacture, the only way to do this other than an absolute dictatorship is currency.

 

[Tono Makt]

There will always be a need for a currency of some sort - we've always had it, we always will. Even with the Star Trek replicators we're going to need something to contend with the items that can't be replicated; attending a music concert, travelling farther than one can be beamed (though in the NuTrek, that might not count anymore since you can beam from Earth to Qu'noS), an original piece of artwork, getting the neighbours kid to cut your grass or pull weeds from your garden, etc.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

I think in the society you describe. The widespread use of currency may decline. But I believe there will always be exceptions where currency is needed. Suppose you want a service that can't be replicated. I don't think people will be lining up to provide services for free. So you would either have to give them something they couldn't replicate, or give them another service or favor. But eventually people will want a guarantee of that favor. So they will give some kind of physical or digital guarantee of service. Which would eventually just become currency. At least thats how I imagine it will be.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Even if resources as we understand them become redundant, humans will always find something to economize.

 

[SinisterGehe]

There will always be need for currency, there will always be something that has THE highest value that everyone wants and needs - and when something is used to trade with then it is currency.

Long as the humanity is installed in humans, there will always be need for a currency. And specially since in world in which our whole infrastructure has a lot of non-productive professions, there needs to be money. Example doctors are important, vital and necessary profession, yet they do not produce ANYTHING that could be traded objectively.

Of course there is always socialism, one true form of government. At least in theory, but thus far they all have lead up to massive dictatorships and failure. Still waiting for good test results.

 

[Headsprouter]

Well, the conspiracy theorist in me thinks we will always have currency for as long as our existence is, as even if a replicator is built, the greedy people will never let us be aware it exists, so they can keep their control.

But that's just me.

 

[Yearlongjester]

I'm working on it, I got a four-step plan and everything.

1) Create A.I, thus breaching the Technological Singularity and ushering a new age of enlightenment.
2) Pave the way for the full automation of our manufacturing industries through Robotics and aforementioned A.I.
3) Fix energy problem. Short-term: Get away from Fossil Fuels. Long-term: the creation of a new energy source that is renewable, relatively cheap and portable without the major loss in energy. (Currently there is no way to "save" energy, it is directed to areas and if the grid isn't fully utilizing the output than the energy is lost.)
4) Fix supply problem. Without a financial economy there will be a problem with demand, we won't have to cut back and watch what we get. I feel the solution would be to investigate altering Sub-Atomic particles, particularly that of waste. Think of it as a new way of recycling, that banana peel can now become something else, depending on the desire.

After those are established, it would be feasible but there would still be a ton of problems. Law Enforcement would be difficult when many officers would quit there jobs if it were no longer required to make a living, and if our laws were left in place as they are now we would have a serious problem enforcing any of them with a straight face.

The education system would need massive revisions as well, I shan't dive into that because it's late and I don't want to stir a debate, but I find even the school systems in some European countries (Which supposedly have the best schools in the world) to be lacking.

Honestly I think one of the biggest problems would be IP rights. After we eliminate currency, what differentiates fan fiction from the actual product? Should only the original creator be allowed to muddle about in his/her universe? Must they be consulted each and every time somebody has an idea and have to greenlight it? Or could we allow anyone to work on any IP, and let the fans decide which are worthy of achieving canon status.

Lots of difficulties in this endeavor, but it will be worth it. Starting to learn programming now. You're all welcome.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Currency is a false reality meaning, its only as real as society sees it. Because of this there is a chance it will not always exists.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

My friend and I were having a debate earlier about whether the human race will ever lose the need for currency due to hypothetical scientific advancements?

I argued that with enough scientific and technological developments we might develop a Star Trek-like society where people do things because it's what they love, and there will be no need for currency when science advances to a certain level because we might have robots to the menial rap jobs, wihilst people just go into fields for jobs because it's what they love, and due to infinite resources and technology, there will be no need for currency (obviously highly hypothetical, but this is a hypothetical argument).

That's bullshit though. The people in Star Trek do jobs for the same reason as we do - power. Money doesn't serve an and in itself, people want it because it gives us power. The whole "we don't do things for money" in Star Trek is a giant strawman, because people in modern society don't do things "for money" either.

Ask Picard why it should be him making the decisions instead of Riker, and he won't have an answer for you.

 

[Sheen Lantern]

Money is but a tool to facilitate the need to trade easily for either services and materials.

Don't confuse it's original purpose with it's actual application.

Money has become a means of control.

You should probably stop reading conspiracy stories.

How could you possibly deny that?

 

[KOMega]

okay, okay. What about this.
We start using seemingly rational, but ultimately politically incorrect ideas for currency?

Money has become a means of control.

It is indeed a means of control.
but not in the "The government is controlling you! Were being watched!" sort of way.

We use it to control the value of things to some extent.

Like if I made some bread, and you wanted some, I would probably not give it to you unless maybe you were on the verge of dying or something. I was totally going to eat it later.

You are a uh... idk... snail farmer.
So how any snails will you give me for my bread? What if I think that snail over there is better than the one you gave me here? What if we determine that 5 snails is too little, but 6 is too much? What do I do with the snails afterwards?
I'm sure there is someone in need of snails somewhere, but I am busy making bread. I am not a snail salesman. Ever get that feeling snails sounds less and less like a word the more you say snails?
[sub]snails snails snails snails snails[/sub]

 

[Silvanus]

I know what you mean, I'm just saying that its the same principle, "people that are less well off in life are poor" and because of that its utterly impossible to end poverty because it is utterly impossible for two lifeforms to be perfectly identical in their experience of reality. One will always be the richer. But depending on the actual differences between them it may not really matter.

One person having less than another is not the same as that person starving. I'm simply not talking about minor inequalities, or the philosophical differences between true poverty and other inequalities.

Someone starving to death is not in the same boat as someone who simply has a little less than somebody else. Objectively, we can get the world to the state in which people have enough to eat and ready access to medicine.

Current levels of starvation, etc are not a matter of currency/economics, its a technological/societal problem that still needs to be solved.

It's hugely linked to economics and resource management, as well as technology and society.

 

[Greg White]

No. Sorry to be pessimistic, but I think the world as we know it will likely run itself into ground before that. So, sure currency will be gone in a sense, but no Star Trek future.

In Star Trek's universe there were 3 major wars that destroyed all semblances of society.

Even in a post-scarcity environment like they had had currency(they make an ungodly amount of references to money and buying things in TOS), both when dealing internally and in the form of barter with other species.

 

[Silverbeard]

I argued that with enough scientific and technological developments we might develop a Star Trek-like society where people do things because it's what they love, and there will be no need for currency when science advances to a certain level because we might have robots to the menial rap jobs, wihilst people just go into fields for jobs because it's what they love, and due to infinite resources and technology, there will be no need for currency (obviously highly hypothetical, but this is a hypothetical argument).

This type of thinking is flawed because it disregards the notion of necessity being the mother of all invention. Satellites were not built because someone liked the idea of nonvisible communication and space travel, they were built because there was a need for them and someone (or many someones) was willing to spend money to essentially convince people to build satellites.
Penicillin (the first antibiotic) was not discovered by someone genuinely interested in curing bacterial diseases. They were discovered by accident when Fleming forgot to wash his plates. They were weaponized later because there was a need for them.
Regardless, we need to consider the most basic problem of a Star Trek level replicator: namely, someone has to invent such a thing. Let us assume that Robert, a citizen of the USA, builds the first one. What then? In all probability, some large electronics company, maybe General Electric or Philips, will want it and will make him an offer he cannot refuse. They will get it and they will mass produce it for the world- at a price. A price paid in currency. Even if Robert can resist the temptation of easy money for as long as he lives, the USA government can claim eminent domain and take it from him, as any government anywhere can. Either way, I cannot imagine a situation in which replicator tech becomes a 'free' product for anyone, and therefore no situation in which currency (and more importantly, a standardized system of international and domestic trade) becomes redundant.

Captcha: Fatter Wallet. For shame, Escapist. For shame.

 

[Silverbeard]

Ask Picard why it should be him making the decisions instead of Riker, and he won't have an answer for you.

He would say that this is so because he is the captain. Which does raise the point that all we ever see of the federation is Starfleet, its military arm. We very rarely get to visit the homes of Riker or Crusher while they're on leave- and the rules of a nations military are never the same as the rules of its society.

 

[conmag9]

If we transcended to a society that could make anything ala Star Trek, and had limitless energy, creativity would become the new currency. Or perhaps fame. As long as someone has something we want and we aren't willing to just take it, currency of some form will exist. I do suspect it will become more abstract though.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Ask Picard why it should be him making the decisions instead of Riker, and he won't have an answer for you.

He would say that this is so because he is the captain.

Dumb answer. Kirk and Picard are always going on about making a difference and then you see the next captain in the next show making the same old decisions they would have made, along with thousands of underlings. Fact is, if Picard didn't exist things would be the 99% the same. Someone would else in search of personal glory and power would have taken his place and been given the same incentive would have made the same decisions, whether we call that incentive money, power or "love of what we do".

 

[rasputin0009]

But however will we measure our superiority over each other? Humans love capitalism and capitalism will always have a form of currency. Because "I have a Lamborghini and you don't!" sums us up fairly well.

 

[Silverbeard]

Ask Picard why it should be him making the decisions instead of Riker, and he won't have an answer for you.

He would say that this is so because he is the captain.

Dumb answer. Kirk and Picard are always going on about making a difference and then you see the next captain in the next show making the same old decisions they would have made, along with thousands of underlings. Fact is, if Picard didn't exist things would be the 99% the same. Someone would else in search of personal glory and power would have taken his place and been given the same incentive would have made the same decisions, whether we call that incentive money, power or "love of what we do".

Sure, that is true, but why does that make anything less valid? No-one is indispensable to the world, but does that make the actions of each dispensable person less valid?
Maybe nothing would change if Janeway had command of the Enterprise, but that is certainly no reason to lay aspersions on Picard's head.