Home » Environment » Will a Resource Based Economy Work?

Will a Resource Based Economy Work?


There has been a longer discussion recently in this article whether a resource based economy will work or not. And the opposer’s argument was largely centered around a notion that in RBE there will be no contracts, that people can just walk away from their ‘job’, and that this will lead to a lack of mining ‘ore’. That we won’t find people to work in the mines to dig up minerals needed for our ‘social production’ as he calls it, to produce our cell phones and laptops, etc.

Of course, he does have a point. But not only in regards to mining ore, but in regards to the operation of the whole planet. I understand his concern as I have it myself. The complexity of the world we have today is extremely vast when it comes to the production of goods and services. Of course, mining of ore to extract minerals, is one of the aspects of this complexity. We have a huge production of different products that need everything from aluminum to plastics to glass to silicon to mention but a tiny percentage of the whole. And all of these minerals and raw materials are processed in a lot of different places and manufactured into a huge amount of different products. And this goes on on thousands of locations all over the planet.

All of the ‘alternative solutions’ to the problems we have in the world today deal with solutions within the monetary system. We have ‘recycling’, ‘carbon shares’, ‘cradle to cradle’, ‘environmental protection’, and so forth. All of these deals with the industry and the monetary system staying as it is. ‘Recycling’ means that we have to recycle the minerals and raw materials used in many of our products. ‘Carbon shares’ is a ‘monetary way’ for the society to be able to continue to pollute the environment, but it will cost a bit more for the polluter. ‘Cradle to cradle’ means that industries produce everything with the termination and recycling of the product in mind, not using any harmful agents in the product. ‘Environmental protection’ is the total of all measures taken in regards to protect the environment, but still within the monetary system.

All of these measures assume that the monetary system, the industry, the free market and so forth stay largely as it is. With recycling, cradle to cradle and carbon shares thinking, we still think in terms of continuous consumption and unlimited economic growth.

It is understandable that the majority of people can not think in terms of changing the whole system, from the root and up, because it is very difficult to think that far ‘out of the box’.

We have all become used to our way of life, with tonnes and tonnes of different products in thousands of different categories. And we all think that this has to go on. We all think that we need hundreds of different producers of cell phones, lap tops, cars, mattresses, guitars, etc. etc.

Yes, we, humans are an industrious race. We have ideas, we produce, we manufacture, we consume, and we do it all over again. This is who we are. Isn’t it? Humans have proven to be full of ideas and ingenious solutions to many of the problems of being human. We are also very good at creating problems for ourselves, so that we can have yet more to solve. We constantly do this, and it seems to be human nature. And we all wan’t to be free. Free to do what we want, travel where we want, think and say what we want, work with what we want and live wherever we want. Of course, this kind of freedom is limited to only a few in our world today.

My point and question is; How can/will a resource based economy work on a global scale, without it becoming a ‘totalitarian’ system? For sure, none of us want’s any ‘global machine government’, even though that is what Jacque Fresco of The Venus Project proposes. We all want’s to be able to make our own decisions. So, how can it work, then? We are all so indoctrinated into thinking that if there’s no ‘penalty’ in terms of ‘job loss’, ‘money loss’, ‘property loss’ and so forth, we can’t get people to do what is needed in society.

We think that if everyone will be able to ‘do whatever they want to do’, then we will lack a whole lot of people to ‘dig ore’ as our commenter puts it. No one will take on a dangerous job like going into the mines and dig out the urgently needed minerals to produce our cell phones, because when he/she get’s everything he/she needs, he/she could simply walk away whenever he/she want’s. Since there wouldn’t be any binding contract (in terms of money/property/job loss) in a resource based economy, the whole of society would simply collaps.

Trust me, I truly, really and utterly understand this concern and this disbelief in a resource based economy.

The first time I heard about RBE, I immediately got a feeling that ‘this is good’, but at the same time, I couldn’t get it to work in my intellectual analyzing mind. And that’s why I started this blog. I felt strongly that RBE is possible, and not only possible, but the best alternative humanity has ever been able to choose. But I couldn’t prove it. Because I too was totally indoctrinated in my mind in regards to thinking about money and property as givens. As something that’s always been there, like air. It has taken me a couple of years to ‘dedoctrinate’ myself into seeing how RBE can be possible.

So, back to our question. If we have no money or need for money, and everything is provided for everyone, what will make people ‘work in the mines’ and do all the ‘dirty work’ needed in our society? It is a very good question, and I am not sure that I can give a 100% answer to that. Because I don’t know. I can only speculate and imagine, which I have done for a couple of years. And my answer goes like this:

Firstly, we have to think of RBE as a totally and utterly different society. We can not think of an RBE society with our ‘monetary goggles’. We have to take them off. We have to be able to imagine that the individuals on this planet can actually shift their way of thinking from a ‘penalty based’ society to a ‘freedom of contribution’ society where we do what we do because we want to contribute to society in meaningful ways. Many people think this way already and refuse to take jobs ‘just to earn money’ but do what they do because of their conviction in a different society. They have an inherent need to do something meaningful that truly contributes to this world. Thinking that there has to be a ‘monetary penalty’ lurking in the background to get people to do what is really needed in society is seeing this with the old ‘monetary goggles’.

The truth is that the monetary reward is over rated in terms of production efficiency. There have numerous studies that support this. Take a look at Dan Pink’s TED Talk about this phenomena and the animation made from it. What is shows is that higher incentives leads to worse performance. It sounds like a self contradictory statement, but when you think about it and see the background, it is not. And these results have been replicated over and over again by psychiatrists, sociologists and economists. For simple, straight forward tasks, ‘if you do this, then you get that’, monetary incentives are great. But when a task get’s more complicated, when it requires some more conceptual thinking, the monetary incentives don’t work.

What the research continues to show is that money is a motivator only when it gets people to take on a job. After getting the job, there are other factors that leads to better performance and personal satisfaction, and they are; Autonomy, mastery and purpose. Money only plays a part if the job doesn’t pay good enough for people to make a living. As soon as people are paid enough, then these other factors are the important ones.

What this shows is that the true values within humans are not ‘penalty centered’, but rather centered around our previous notion of ‘freedom of contribution’. Autonomy is a vital value. People want’s to feel that they have a freedom to choose what they do and how they do it. Mastery is an equally important value. To have enough education and experience to really feel that one masters and succeeds in resolving the tasks at hand. And last, but not least: purpose. We all have to feel a sense of purpose in what we do. It has to be meaningful. In other words, money, and the threat of a ‘monetary penalty’ is not the reasons why people do stuff.

This shows to prove that people actually might be ‘digging ore’ if there is a sense of autonomy, mastery and purpose in the job.

Then we come to the point where we have to take off the ‘monetary goggles’ and put on the ‘RBE goggles’ instead. When we have this totally brand new world and way of thinking, there would be so many things that would be different. Since people doesn’t have to take a job because of money anymore, what would people do? Why would they do anything? Well, the former section should give the answer. People would seek meaningful and purposeful tasks. We would seek tasks where we feel a sense of autonomy and mastery. I think we also can add several reasons why people would do stuff that the mentioned research doesn’t show. Like excitement, interest and fulfillment.

So, meaning, purpose, mastery, autonomy, excitement, interest and fulfillment are what really drives people, and what will drive people in a resource based economy.

Now, back to ‘digging ore’. If this activity brings any of the above mentioned elements, people will do it. But, when we have a resource based economy, where most people have waken up from the continuous consumption cycle and where most people want’s to contribute to the betterment of society, things like ‘digging ore’ will not be as needed as before. Why? Because of several things. With the new mindset of humanity, consumption will go drastically down. Not so much new minerals and raw materials has to be dug up. Production will go down too, as products will be made to last and instead of postponing the release of new technology to maximize profit, the newest technology can be released right away, thus saving millions of tonnes of raw material that other wise would have been used in the never ending ‘new products’. And lastly, technology that ‘digs ore’ will be developed, minimizing the need for human personell way down in the mines.

To see how a resource based economy can work, we can divide it into 4 categories:

1. The human values has changed, or rather, has become acknowledged.

2. Technology has become more and more developed, removing the need for humans doing dangerous and repetitive tasks.

3. As a result of RBE, society as a whole has changed drastically.

4. The notion of ‘property’ and ‘ownership’ has changed.

 

Human Values

The most important first step for RBE to work is the human values. As we see, people are intrinsically motivated by other things than money, like a sense of purpose and meaning. It is only today’s need for money that locks people into a ‘mind prison’ thinking that money is what motivates them, when it really is not.

So this is about education and awakening. For RBE not to be a totalitarian, global, machine based government, which non of us want, people have to wake up one by one into the truth of their own motivation. We, as individuals have to train ourselves and each other into thinking of ‘why we are here’ and ‘what we really want to do’, not in terms of money, but in terms of what we feel as our true purpose here on the planet.

I am training myself everyday to think this way. And the way I do it is to tell my self that every thing I do, I do of service to the planet and humanity, service to others, and service to my self. Service to my self in terms of what I want to do here on earth. And, I have already had the epiphany that being of service to others can be extremely fulfilling for my self. Thus, doing what I do the very best way I can do it, is a fulfilling thing. And this has nothing to do with money. What is funny, though, is that since I started thinking like this, I have had more to do in my business than ever before, which of course brings in much more money than ever before as well….

Of course, we can say that money is a means of gratitude, a ‘flow of appreciation’, going from one person to another. I am not opposed to that way of thinking. Far from it. It is just that money and property and the whole management of the whole planet has been so thoroughly fucked up by the ‘money logic’, that trying to think of a world totally without money and property would do us all very good. It certainly does me good. And I realize that as soon as I start to think in terms of money, I immediately get that old stressful feeling again. It is me not thinking about money but at my purpose of being of service that brings the money in! Because when I think that I don’t need money, I become relaxed, and the ‘law of attraction’ works in my favor.

And then, my friends, what would be the logical consequence of this? Well, if all of us started thinking of our purpose, rather than money, and doing things out of purpose rather than money…….we wouldn’t need any money! When our purpose is to be of service, to give and share, then everyone will always have enough of everything ever needed. And low and behold, we would actually live purpose- and meaningful lives. Every one of us. No need to stress for more money, paying bills, pay taxes, take up loans, do accounting, pay insurance, and what have you.

For a resource based economy to work, more and more people on the planet have to wake up to this reality. It is a human choice that we have to do as individuals. There are already a whole lot of volunteers around the world working for non-profit volunteer organizations. So the notion is not new. The question is whether it will spread to the rest of society as well. But that a whole world could ‘work for free’ for each other should be totally possible. At least when enough (critical mass) people realize the benefits of doing this, rather than toiling with money and all that it entails.

 

Technology

When the new value system is in place, when enough people realize the above mentioned, both people who now are in ‘normal jobs’, but also those who are in politics and those who run large corporations, the abandonment of money will be a reality. Then, with the profit motive gone, technology can be developed without the hindrances that patents and greed used to be for unlimited development.

When we can concentrate on developing the best technology for everyone in every circumstance, and we can truly let technology replace 99% of today’s jobs. Jobs that now are ‘kept open’, since replacing them with technology would be devastating for the economy. Today, millions of people still work in factories doning work that easily could have been replaced by machines, robots and technology. There are already a whole lot of machines and technology in place, but again and again, I see people ‘closing the lid’ on cardboard boxes and other meaningless repetitive tasks easily replaceable by technology.

And back to the ‘ore digging’ metaphor. I am pretty sure that this field is also one where technology and machines could do much more work then it does today, replacing the need for human personell in mines. Besides, when we truly make products to last, and human values have changed, we won’t consume as much, and we will be able to recycle 100% of all ‘waste’, maybe extracting enough of what raw materials we need, not needing to dig much more holes in the planet. In other words, technology teamed with the new human values, will make the need for constantly new stuff much much less, and thus the need to constantly dig up new resources.

And to me, being a part of a world where we all try to maximise human and environmental potential and protection, rather than profit, and where we work to develop technology to serve these ends is very interesting and fulfilling.

It would also be a true investment in humanity and the planet. An investment where we strive to take care of the environment, build up the soil, educate all humans and build a sustainable world. A world we all can truly enjoy for the rest of our lives and for all coming generations.

 

Society

Now, with the human values and the new focus on technology in place, society will change drastically. We all work to fulfill our purpose in life, for our own and others betterment, to master new skills, to share our knowledge and experience and to have exiting and meaningful ‘work’. In a society with no money or property we can all truly care about each other with no ‘secret agenda’.

All humans will be educated to serve other humans and the planet itself. The population will automatically stabilize when everyone understands that every person can not have more then one child in his/her lifetime, meaning maximum two children per family. When this is followed we will have a ‘one birth per one death’, securing a stable population on the planet. And this is made by individual choice, not by force. By choice, because people now are educated to see the whole picture, and their own place in it.

What used to be companies and corporations will transform to be hubs of knowledge within their respective fields. There can still be ’employees’, but they won’t be there because they need to collect a pay check. They will be there because it is their field of interest and of expertise, because they want to be there. To participate and collaborate. People can still start ‘businesses’, but not for monetary gain, but to work together on new solutions to old or new problems, to create works of art, to draw new buildings, develop new transportation or new types of energy, new medicines or what have you. It will be a purpose driven world, rather than a profit driven one. It will be a world where human potential is maximized in all aspects.

So then, what would the ‘ore miners’ do? Maybe some of them have been working in the mine for years and years and know nothing else. Maybe these would want to continue doing what they do, but maybe a little less. Maybe take a long vacation, or only work a couple of days a week. Maybe this leads to a deficiency of Coltan for a while, but so what? So what if we don’t get the new iPhone 5 this fall. So what if we don’t get the newest flat screen 52 inches LED powered Full HD TV this christmas. So what!?

The only ‘thing’ in this world that ‘needs’ this is the never satisfied, always craving, always consuming, never stopping Monetary System that needs cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence and endless waste to exist. But WE don’t need that. We are not ‘consumers’, it is this system that has made people this way. It is this system that needs us to constantly consume and crave more and more and more, and no wonder, cause if we don’t, the whole system will collaps. Just like that. If we stop buying our cell phones, our cars, our flat screens, our new jeans, our jewelry, our what have you, there will be no more monetary system. So, that’s why we need an alternative ASAP. And here we are, discussing RBE.

Back to the ‘ore miners’. Some other of the ore miners might have thought of smarter ways to do things, might have ideas to ease the process of getting up that ore. But, he can’t tell anyone about it, because if he does, he might loose his job. Because his idea is for a machine that can DO his job. But now, in the new resource based economy, that is exactly what he can do. Of course, the mining company doesn’t need to earn money any more either, so they might also relax a bit, digging that ore.

They have now become a part of a global cooperation of former mining companies, working together in coordinating what is really needed of mined minerals in the world. And the former ore miner workers idea to a new machine that can replace the humans needed down in the mine is welcomed with open arms. He becomes a part of the new global mining cooperation, working together with researchers, scientists and environmentalists on how to provide what is now needed of new minerals in a most planet friendly way.

Some of the other miners also want’s to be a part of this and becomes a part of the global team. Then again, other miners might grab the opportunity to do something completely different. One of them had always had an interest for sociology, but never go to study it. He goes of to university. The university that is now open for everyone. And the learning is now strongly aided by new technology, facilitating the possibility for many more people to learn than ever before. Another one had wanted to travel the world. Off she goes, being able to go anywhere she wants for as long as she wants. She learns a lot on her trip, and want’s to study anthropology to understand indigenous people better, and how they can contribute to the world. A third one had several inventive ideas for improving and cleaning contaminated water. He quickly finds other people within these fields where his ideas becomes picked up, improved, tested and used in the real world, improving water everywhere it is needed.

All former patents are now made public, for everyone to study and contribute to. All secrets ever held by governments are let out in the open. All borders are opened and totally free travel by every one made possible. New efficient, environmentally friendly, energy independent and healthy transportation, housing and cities are built all over the planet. And everyone can live anywhere they want, according to their own interest and need. Everyone can contribute in the fields that interest them the most. Everyone can educate themselves in new fields at any time. The world has become 100% efficient in terms of human satisfaction and development. The question is, ‘what do you want to do?’. Not in terms of money, but in terms of what is needed on the planet at any time and what the individual feel is fulfilling to spend his or her days on.

There is a natural coordination in this. When a beach is full, one goes somewhere else. When a field is full, when an area is full, when there is no need, one finds something else to do, elsewhere. And there will always be needs that needs to be met. And we meet them in our full ability. If it is too much, we say so and get more help. We all collaborate in this world.

Humanity has discovered it’s true purpose here on earth. It turned out that it is not to compete for imaginary money and to hoard property, but to build a better world together, so that everyone can participate in true challenges and feel true and lasting joy.

 

Property and ownership

Property and ownership have, as money, been around for thousands of years, and has been the key building blocks in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system. So, what about property and ownership in RBE? I feel the thoughts float towards ‘communism’ and other not-so-nice ‘isms’ here. Shall we have no ownership and own no property in RBE?

I will make a distinction here between ‘personal property’ and ‘public property’. ‘Personal property‘ is your movable items that you own, also called ‘movable property’. ‘Public property‘ is what today is dedicated to the use of the public, owned collectively by the population or the state. Today, one person can own vast amounts of land and other property as their private property. More and more state property is now also becoming privately owned. This has been the constant struggle between the capitalists and the state for millennia. The state and the public want’s to have property available for it’s citizens, while the capitalists want’s to secure as much property for themselves.

In RBE, some different models can be discussed. Obviously, no one person can own huge amount of land, like there is today. Still, if a family or a person want’s and needs some land to have a ‘family domain’ to live on and to grow their own food on, this could be accommodated. Then ‘who’ would accomodate this, one might ask. In Jacque Fresco’s RBE, there wouldn’t be any ‘state’. Instead, there would be computerized decision making, determining the fate of humanity. I can not see this working on a large, global scale. For sure, computers can, and does, make a lot of day to day decisions. And for sure, they can and will definitely be extended to make more societal decisions than they do today. But, many decisions will still have to be up to us, the humans. And not to forget, WE are the ones who will be programming the computers, based on what we want out of them.

I foresee some kind of coordination, where coordinators and informators are assigned to different areas on the planet. The persons will not have any deciding power, but will coordinate and inform, together with data technology, what is decided on a particular place. They will be coordinating and informing the community, so to speak. But the community will have constant voting power in all relevant areas. Not like today, where someone are elected, and you have to stick with that person for the remainder of the period. I say ‘relevant areas’, because some things can not be voted upon, like the best angle for the pillar under the bridge that is to be built. These types of decisions are up to the specialized personell.

Computers and coordination aside, back to the land. The Venus Project proposes to build completely new cities that would be 100% self sufficient in terms of energy and food production, and very efficient in terms of transportation, energy use and waste management. This is something that would be a natural extension of RBE, when the majority of humans starts to think not in terms of money, but in terms of the betterment of people and the planet. So, new and more efficient cities is a natural way to use the land. At the same time, existing cities will be optimized as much as possible in terms of energy use, transportation and waste management. Buildings and parts of cities that are too difficult to optimize, will be recycled into new uses.

Today we have a lot of farming on the planet. Outside our existing cities there are hectare upon hectare of fields of all sorts, producing everything from maize to potatoes and rice to grapes. Today, all of the production of food is dependent on oil, both for transportation, but also for fertilizers and pesticides. An lot of today’s food production is simply thrown away to uphold the food prizes on the global marked. Too much bananas? Then we throw some mega tonnes away, so that the rest can be sold for a good prize. Today, millions of tonnes of food is thrown away every day, because unsold food rot away in supermarkets waste containers. At the same time our earth and soil and water gets contaminated with all the artificial fertilizers and pesticides used to grow the food.

I RBE, the new cities will be 100% self sufficient in terms of food production, utilizing both hydroponics, aquaponics and permaculture principles, providing clean, safe, nutritious and locally produced food all year round with absolutely no use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Very little food will go to waste in RBE, and we will thus need to produce much less of it, than today. So, some land around the cities will be used for food production for that respective city. And since there is no competition between food producers, the food production can be optimized to the true need of the population, minimizing wasteful production and transportation.

Of course, there will be a lot of room for individual choice in RBE, much more than today, where individual choice is determined by ones money amount. If one want’s to live on an ‘old type’ farm, on the country side, one can do this. This is not problem. There is still plenty of land on the planet, and people who want’s to live in wooden old houses, redecorate themselves and grow their own food, can do that. If they want’s to combine and use the latest technology on ‘their’ land, they can do that too.

Just as today, we will in RBE have three major categories of land:

1. Cities

2. Country side

3. Wilderness

In difference from today, we will all have access to all of it. Of course, if someone is using it already, and that use is needed, then that part of the land is ‘taken’. Just like when you come to a beach, you don’t put your towel on top on someone else’s. No you put your towel somewhere else on the beach. And if the beach is full, you go somewhere else, or come back another day. And property will be used ‘purposefully’. If there is a factor there, producing clothing or something else, then that property is used for that, just like today, except that no one ‘own’ the factory, but all of us. Someone has responsibility over it, but no one ‘owns’ it.

In today’s world, we see that in many cases, things work better if they are privately owned and sold to the public. At the same time, privately owned corporations can be responsible for a lot of pollution and misbehaving. In other cases, public services work better than private. It seems like it all boils down to the individuals behind it. A corporation can be (quite) environmentally conscious, treat it’s employers well, and work pretty well for all parties. Still, it is totally binded by the demand of the owners and employees to make profit and ‘go well’ economically speaking. This, more often than not, ruins the businesses possibility to act in a responsible way when it comes to the environment and to it’s employees.

Then we come to today’s public services. Some work well, some work terrible. At least, there isn’t as pronounced profit motive here, as with the privately owned corporations, so more regards can be given to environment and human health. But again, public services are also dependent on money, and thus, are also somewhat a slave to the profit motive.

Privately or publicly owned. What is best? Again, it seems like it boils down to the persons and the intent behind it. It is the individual persons with their stronger or weaker intent that drives the results in this.

Non of us want’s a resource based economy to be a new totalitarian dictatorial system. So, back to our first premise, ‘human values’ and ‘human awakening’. It all boils down to this. We, as individuals have to wake up and consciously choose this new direction. We have to consciously choose to share our property and give it up as our ‘own’. We have to understand the value in RBE against today’s system, and choose based on what works best.

‘Property’ is a mindset. As written in another article, we don’t really ‘own’ anything. ‘Ownership’ is an illusion. We think we own things, we believe we own stuff, but really, we don’t. At best, we can say that ‘this is in my possession as long as I need it and use it’. This is the only ‘ownership’ we will ever have over anything. You have a pair of jeans. You might have bought them in a store, you might have gotten them as a gift, or you might have picked them up for free in a used clothes container or sharing market. In any case, you are ‘in possession’ of them right now. You might lend them to a friend, you might give them away tomorrow, they might be ripped apart by your dog, you might loose them on a trip, or you might throw them away. In any case, when were they ‘yours’? Were ‘yours’ when they were made at the factory? Are they still ‘yours’ after you have given them away?

No, the notion of ‘ownership’ and ‘property’ is only a construction to make the capitalistic society work. Ownership and property has been tools to create the economy and the system we have today, the monetary capitalistic system. There is no real ownership in nature. There is only temporary use and respect for each other. As long as we respect each other, our ‘personal space’, then we will have no problems. You can keep a pair of pants for as long as you will, but they are never truly ‘yours’. You can walk in the forest, and as you walk on the path, you are using the path, but it is never ‘your property’.

So, how will property and ownership work in a resource based economy? It will work like it works in nature. You will ‘own’ your creations, but not in a way that prevents others to use them and continue to develop them. You will ‘own’ your pants, but only as long as you need and want them. You will ‘own’ everything you need as long as you need it. In other words, all land will be public, but you can grow your own vegetables on a plot of land and take care of that as ‘your own’ as long as you would like that. But you can’t claim vast amounts of land as ‘your own’ if you or your family doesn’t need it. You will ‘own’ your ‘personal property’ for as long as you want and need it, and the rest will be public property.

In other words, all land will be public, but one can get designated areas to have for instance a ‘family domain’ or to grow you own vegetables. In general, we will work together to use land and grow food in the most sustainable ways, with or without machinery.

Housing will also be common and open to anyone. Meaning that if you want to live one place for a longer period, you can do that for as long as you want. But if you want to move, you can do that too. And you don’t need to bring all the furniture with you, since that will exist on the new place. To travel and visit other countries and cultures will also be much easier in a resource based economy.

In genreal, the distinction is between ‘ownership’ and ‘accessibility’. It should be pretty clear by now, that when no one owns anything, but have access to everything, we all will have much much more access to all the things we today have limited or no access to. At the same time, a lot less would have to be produced of the same things.

Take cars, for instance. Today we have a vast amount of cars on the planet, and more are produced every single day. Still, most of them stands still for 90% of the time, not being in use. So, we have parking lots brim full of unused cars, because we all have to own one. When we instead own nothing, but have access to everything, we wouldn’t need one tenth of the cars we have today. When we instead share cars, we can all have access to a lot more cars than when we all have to own one car each. We will even have access to cars we never dreamed of driving before.

When we share everyone get’s more. Both of land, cars, travel possibilities, boats, clothing, furniture, technology and what have you. Our choices becomes virtually unlimited in RBE vs. in today’s ownership system.

For example, Google (one of the new knowledge hubs in RBE) have developed technology for cars so that they can drive themselves (See video here). With this kind of technology, there wouldn’t be any problem with sharing cars. One could have a ‘car pool’, where one could simply order a car, and the car would show up on your front porch. You wouldn’t even have to drive it if you didn’t want to. You could get in, and relax with a good book, check out the scenery, or take a nap, while the car safely drives you to all the way to your destination.

Of course, this is only the beginning. Eventually, cars will also be electric, non-polluting, and maybe even fly!

 

Conclusion

In summing up, a resource based economy is hard to imagine from our existing mindset and what we are used to. It sounds to good to be possible. But why not? This might be the only solution we have if we want to survive as a species. Maybe we simply have to make it work.

Personally, I think RBE is more than possible. I think it is viable and a real solution for humanity. We are already half way there, with all the voluntarism that exists in the world.

The future is limitless. But only if we let go of the hoarding and self centeredness and look at what is really possible when we abandon money an focus together on our common future.

Maybe we can look at a resource based economy as the world today, only without money and property, the hopeless financial crisises, wars and backwards thinking, but with an emphasis on sharing, experimenting, exploring, collaborating and celebrating.

With a common effort, focussing on values and technology, we can do it. Why not?

 

Tags: , , ,

109 Responses so far.

  1. It’s hard to wrap your head around a RBE. It can create problems that we can’t yet foresee. I would like to see some kind of outline for a RBE, and guideline to get us there. Perhaps even a simulation in the form of a video game. If you ever want to chat about blocking the pitfalls of a RBE, just let me know. I would love to see some kind of roadmap be developed for a RBE.

  2. name says:

    hello everyone!
    to be sure, how is the RBE a system that can replace the monetary system?
    and what is the starting point of making this happen?
    and what is the ending point of making this happen?
    what is the real plan of pursuing this ideology?
    i really understand the benefits of the ideology but i do not understand what is the role of the society to make this happen?
    to be clear, how will this system work? how shall we start it? how shall be replace the monetary system?
    so please explain???
    i will be one the the first people to volunteer if you show me any clear-cut plan of implementing this system?
    thank you

    • seyda says:

      so that, there is no huge disparity between rich and poor and that all of the world’s people live in a brand new society driven by purpose and meaning. It requires us to wipe out all our values and develop a new way of thinking.. Currently there is more than enough goods in the world for everyone to live a wealthy life but the way and which it has been distributed creates scarcity, poverty.. Please check out Jacque Fresco’s venus project on youtube to get a better understanding.

    • david medina says:

      Most of what you ask starts on each one of us. The ripple effect will make it get to millions and then is when the changes will be inevitable. I hope this change does not come after a global catastrophe. RBE is a must worlwide and requires “a change of thinking and acting” toward money and possesions.

  3. ASamaritakis says:

    what if the RBE would be applied in Africa.. because the most aren’t happy with today’s economy, when the poor city’s of Africa rise up, then it will show the rest of the world what a RBE can do, and many will follow..

    just adding change to a country that wants to..
    adding change to rich city’s will not work because they are afraid of change..
    it’s just as easy as 1+1.

    when you give them an opportunity they will work for it, just like chinese people..

    • Jay says:

      Asamar,

      I’m working on RBE for Afrika now

    • morgan says:

      RBE only really works on a global scale as all necessary resources for equality everywhere aren’t necessarily in every country. so trading over boarders is necessary. if you don’t have money you cant trade. This is why achieving a RBE would be incredibly hard to achieve.

  4. […] Article page – Will a resource based economy work? […]

  5. Dave says:

    It occured to me after reading some of the articles here, that I have
    a contribution regarding the “ore digger”. One of the rewards people
    would receive for their pursuits would be “access” to the resources
    need for that pursuit. This access would be through participation. For
    example, to be a doctor, one must be educated. Education is rewarded
    just like any other pursuit or contribution. It is an enabler to
    higher tiers of the medical industry. Successful completion of the
    education would unlock access to the resources to pursue that level of
    contribution. The “tools” of the doctor for example would only be
    available after completion of the education.

    For those with less education, to have access to resources, one of
    those pursuits or contributions would be digging ore. Also, if no one
    wanted to dig ore, there would be no ore available for production, and
    therefore less of the stuff made that the ore would be required to
    build. In other words, demand for the ore would encourage people to
    pursue it, as its a necessity. If there was no demand, noone would dig
    it up, as there was no need.

    Educations rewards are access to more intelligent pursuits. If you
    dont want to dig ore, then go to school longer, or for a different
    skill set.

    If you want to contribute, but do not like education, then digging ore
    is an option on the table.

  6. Muff says:

    I imagine that in RBE there will be space for inventing new machines for “diggin ore”. Because there is many people that would literaly love to inventing machines, like me. =)

  7. Seika says:

    A long question I have of the RBE is, what’s the fate of peoples who are (to put it harshly) useless. They don’t have skill to contribute. Lets assume they also lack potential and education can’t address that.
    They will be pure consumer not just because they want to, but because they can’t do any better.

    Will they be the new lowest social cxaste looked down like they’re cancer of the society ? How will they be accepted to the system ?

    Most explanations I’ve read seems to feel convenient to assume all humans are creative scientists or artists.

    • jeremy0 says:

      In a new form of society such as RBE, you can see that including fulfillment and purpose, people are lazy, stupid, immature, and want to just have fun. What’s keeping everyone from wanting to become rockstars, actors, writers, etc and instead of progressing society they all spend their time following never-met dreams? What’s to get people to dig in the mines?

      The answer is simpler than you thought. You have a need to fill x job. You don’t want to penalize people that can’t get one, so those people train for new careers. Your reward for people filling a position at any time is access to something that can be restricted without losing basic needs. To do this, you have to look at the hierarchy of needs.

      Everyone needs physiological needs, as well as safety needs. Love and belonging are needs that come after that need is met. So you could use the need to belong to something as a motivator. Belonging in a sense means you have access to group activities, that you make friends, and have a sense of it. Then there’s self-esteem. Then there is self-actualization. Unfortunately, the last two of these needs are rarely met by anyone other than people at the top.

      The objective of my new form of RBE society should be to fulfill all of these things. Some people may consider it self-actualization to do things others would not. I do not get self-actualization from programming unless its recognized by others, which rarely happens in practice. So I’m turning to do these things on my own just so I’m not wasting my life doing stupid shit.

      But everybody doesn’t fit in the same mold. Not everyone can be artists, or rockstars. We used to do this by giving these people money to reward them. In an RBE, we would give them greater access as a reward – free tickets to some venue, or prizes and such. Or maybe an upgrade on a fabricated home. Or maybe some other resource. You have to give everyone at least physical needs and safety needs. But the rest is up to the individual.

      And the mining ore argument – if people could not reach their hierarchy of needs in love, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization by mining ore, perhaps the masters of it could invent some machine to do that – where they navigate the machine through the mine remotely to mine the ore. That way, it’s fun, it’s new, it means something, it’s still work, etc.

      A requirement for the fault of laziness should be that everyone must be working on something productive at all times while they are available to do so. That means working a job, getting educated, or whatever – it should be a requirement that as long as people can work, they must do so. How to do that without money is to give them other forms of resource-based rewards instead. Or perhaps we give them access to leisure activities. Or perhaps we reward them in other ways for participating. In any case, there is an answer to the ‘minor equasion’, and if you think about it – without using punishment – it is achievable that the work that needs to be done can and will be done.

      You have to remember that in a resource-based economy, goods and services are still necessity or luxury. The luxury items can just be the person’s reward for participating. But it also means that either way, everyone has their necessity goods and services.

      That leaves law. Less government would be needed in this sense. You might ask – who would serve in our armies, or would we have to create a draft? The answer is right now – people serve in armies because it gives them a sense of purpose, pride, and duty. The same motivators are true in an RBE….

      Basic and bottom line – if money is the only motivator, it is only being done out of greed. The foundation of an RBE needs to be intertwined with Human needs. The goals of an RBE should be to allow people the ability to reach everything in the triangle of needs. Just like today, there could be punishment and reward for crimes and work – it’s just money is no longer in the equasion. It’s that simple. Crime = loss of resources, jailtime. Good work = access to luxury items/services/leisure activities. Not hard if you think outside of the box…

      -m0rph3us

      • Adam Ribeiro says:

        HI Jeremy,

        I understand where you’re coming from with the “luxury products as rewards” system; however it cannot function like that in a RBE because, if you introduce that system, you’re automatically creating another monetary system but replacing money with the resources – and, thus, creating classes all over again – the only difference being that less intelligent people are the new “poor” people – even thought their needs are met; they may not be ABLE to contribute as much as others – and who are we to deprive ANY individual of ANYTHING for ANY reason – who are we, the American Government? We MUST treat all as equals, regardless of their contributions.

        I think the heirarchy of needs needs to be met at all levels equally (or at least as much as possible) – the only level which is up to the individual is, as you say, self -esteem and self-actualization – let them be their OWN reward. and the lack of them, their OWN punishment.

        I believe the problem is actually not really a product of human beings, but rather the exploitation of each other.
        People are lazy because they work ALL day and sleep 8 hours – as such let’s say:
        (please LMK if you disagree with the following)

        In a 24 hours day:

        – 11 hours working (8 hours + 3 hours for travel, lunch, getting ready for work etc.)
        – 8 hours sleeping (based common knowledge that this is healthy)

        – 19 hours total spent performing actions to stimulate the current “economy” (i.e. spent performing tasks to allow for other individuals to attain more than others – including the individual performing the tasks)
        say another…

        24 – 19 = 5 hours – we have 5 hours – usually between 17:00 – 22:00 – i.e. at night

        we can therefore say that we have 5 hours of freedom per day.

        NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE LAZY!!!
        We ARE slaves!!!

        If we change to an RBE the following will happen:

        We automate as much as possible; we will eliminate 75% (according to Zeitgeist) of the tasks which are currently carried out by humans as work.

        This leaves 25% of the necessity for employment.

        What this means is that we will have 75% of the WORKERS, who were in those jobs, free to do 25% of these tasks – some menial, some not so much.

        basically we will have 4x the number of people to do the new number of tasks.
        (this isn’t even taking into account the human resources available in the “unemployed” category – for the sake of simplicity – we shall leave it out for now and work on the figures based on the people currently working)

        necessary contributions (work) for each individual will be reduced by 75% means that, essentially we would all ONLY need to work for 3 months of the year.

        9 months to TRULY BE FREE!!

        because we work so much and have so little free time; it is widely accepted that people are naturally lazy.
        however; as quoted in Zeitgeist; “It is virtually impossible to understand the nature of biology outside the context of environment”
        Since we have nothing to compare to; we accept that we JUST are lazy and will do nothing in those 9 months for example.

        However; if you remember school days, when you have a long break from school – its great at first but you actually end up missing school – but not only because you can see all your friends again (you can see them during the holidays anyway) but also because you miss the STIMULATION – the feeling of accomplishment etc.

        The same thing happens when people take a long vacation from their job.

        so; if you are given access EVERYTHING you NEED (and lots more) for doing a quarter of the work (either spread out of clumped as you see fit) you’re currently doing – i think you’ll find you won’t WANT to sit on your ass and waste away – thus; the self-actualization will be left up to ourselves to do what we will during the free 9 months.

        the less you accomplish – the less value you grant YOURSELF.
        the more you accomplish – the happier you’ll be (according to the hierarchy of needs and NOT the amount of things you own).

        Motivation won’t be a problem when there’s enough free time to make people bored if they’re not creating – whether it be art; inventing new technologies etc.

        in an RBE: If you are not creative or sociable/social and you wish to sit and do nothing for 9 months and JUST consume – you’re free to do so.
        The only thing we do to prevent this is introduce the idea that self-actualization and self worth depend on your own accomplishments.

        Make it so that you are seen to be less than others, not by your contributions themselves but by the effort/action of DOING something – whatever you CAN.

        Thanks how i believe people will get motivation – inspiration as opposed to fear.
        (fear of not being able to keep your house or eat or educate your kids etc.)

        Anyone agree/disagree – if so; why/why not?

    • Renard says:

      Hello Seika, heres my opinion;

      Right now, in many places, many people with limited capabilities, are locked away in institutions, left on the streets to beg, sometimes without medication they might need to be productive (even if the lack of medication makes some dangerous to themselves and others), some are eventually jailled (which costs a huge amount of ressources). The worst is that some people that *Could* contribute in one area, if, they had access to learing activities and tools, never get the chance to, they do not get a chance to find something they like that is in line with their abilities.

      People with mental disabilities can be thought to do simple part-time jobs adapted for their limited abilites and they can be introduced to games and activities that are enjoyable while helping them develop basic skills. You would be surprized, given a wide range of learing activites, people that appear useless in our current society could be making useful contributions.

      Will they be the new lowest social cxaste: No, that is more typical of our current society’s outlook. (Hey kid, being four years old is no excuse, you need to pull your weight around here, you are a burden for society, off to the factory 😉 At least Fido the Dog can be fed housed and groomed because he works his 14 hours a day as a professional pet, providing entertaining companionship, on te other hand you must work in a factory thats making funny dog poo novelty items or work to push paper back and forth on a desk in an office at the ministery of tea bags, now thats productive, otherwise you are a burden)

      How will they be accepted to the system ?: Accepted, helped, given access to tools/methods to develop and improve themselves to their potential. They would be limited by functional considerations, not by social stigma or prejuice. I cant pilot a A380 with hundreds of passengers, since I dont have the skill set, its a functional limitation, I should have access to the training. I am not an underling because I cant pilot a A380.

      A lot of humans will have a lot more access and opportunity to improve themselves and contribute in ways that are not possible/practical right now.
      (including the people who dont get to learn about rooftop hydroponics and could have developed hydroponics expertise, because they happened to die from starvation and preventable disease as kids)

      • Renard says:

        As a side note, some kids with learing disabilities, diagnosed early and provided with pre-kindergarden education by child development specialists,
        can increase their rate of development to a level that reaches ordinary kids (allowing them to then continue development normally, go to school, etc) or otherwise help them reach a close-to-normal level that will provide them with the tools needed to gain more autonomy then would otherwise be the case.

        Ive seen special education by teams of specialists in childhood development, make a huge difference in the development of kids, significantly accelerating the development of pre-schoolers to a level on par (or near par) with other kids. And, in reality, the specialist in childhood development, is not a rocket scientist but a regular person that loves kids and just had access to more information/training and had a chance to train/put in practice/gain hands-on experience (share experience with others).

    • Anthony Mmoh says:

      I would look at that question from a entirely different perspective, you are analyzing it from a point of view that our current way of being will still be the same in terms of education, no one is useless, I am one of those people, that just came out my shell, and figured out what i wanted to do, but before that I was so called useless, but that was only due to a system that was designed to limit education, and a system that is entirely left brained, many right brained individuals have alot of trouble couping and adjusting to left brained ways of life, but to have a RBE, where education isnt biased to left or right brain individuals, but rather caters to developing both hand in hand, would result in a society of ppl that can live up to their truest potential, ppl are only useless because the system, that is designed one way, makes them believe that, so they become it, yes in the beginning of RBE there might be a bit of shock, but as there is no more frustration and worrying about monetary issues, ppl will be able to find the time, to do the needed self discovery to bring out their strongest attributes, with out fear of being rejected by soiciety, as now society is working to the common good of mankind on all levels, things like, bullying, judgement and crticising will disappear overnight, as we understand, that we operate as one society, as a collective, so one bad kink in the chain, would not benefit society as a whole, we would grow up with very different value structures as a race and as individuals, where we care and truly love one another, as there are no more systems of separation. The only hurdle that we will have to overcome is religion, that would be the last barrier that would cause divide, we would need to have a universal understanding of God, to accomplish this, if this is attainable, then we can achieve a human utopia on planet Earth.

    • Joe says:

      In an RBE, all goods and services would be available to *EVERYONE* without a price tag or submitting to labor.

  8. Zahk says:

    To the question of “what will incentivize people to ‘dig ore'”, I would say that as an individual I would gladly mine ore for a day to provide the raw materials for my OWN smartphone/tablet device. If human consumption went way down and planned obsolescence was destroyed, I think it will be more along the lines of people actually providing themselves with what they need to get what they want.

    • Harald Sandø says:

      Even though this would be very inefficient, it is this mindset that is needed for a resource based economy to work. And to see that many of the readers of this blog is willing to ‘chip in’ to do what is needed in society, shows that the likelihood for RBE to work becomes bigger and bigger.

      • William Nelson says:

        As a participant, teacher, coach, and spectator of Sports all of my life ─ I would speculate that incentive to perform and incentive to improve oneself and the team in a Resource Based Economy will not be scarce. Humans, if not suppressed, have a “built-in” mechanism to compete, to perform, and to express themselves. If anything, RBE will allow/permit more human expression.
        Then, there is always the Awards, Honors, Recognition, and Title System which can be employed to inspire performance. (Ironically, business administrators are currently utilizing it ─ giving lower management level employees a new “job title” rather than a pay raise.)
        Here in the USA, getting rid of “professional” sports, in a RBE, will actually enhance the sport environment and inspire a greater propensity for participation. With more time “to express oneself” more people will utilize the time to improve their skills/techniques and want to compare their level of performance to others.
        However, the ultimate question will be, within an RBE environment: Will individuals become so engrossed with competition and domination in “their sport” that they will be tempted to utilize any means available (the Lance Armstrong scenario) to enhance their performance?
        Hence, the proverbial topic of “ethics.” How will a Resource Based Economy Society deal with issues which jeopardize fairness and equality?

    • Renard says:

      I agree with Harald, though technology will help us to do many things ourselves (personal printer instead of industrial printing press with specialized technicians, smartphone to record a video instead of TV studio, etc), a lot of what brings us quality of life besides technology is *specialization*, because many people dont have to be self sufficient, they can allocate time to master tasks and expertise that is greatly beneficial for other people or that are very productive, an thats something important to understand that many self-sufficient minded earthship people might not fully evaluate. A balance between self-sufficiency (and redundancy as a system resilience advantage) which as good aspects, and specialization, is imo beneficial.

      Many tasks can be made available for participation, and be more open where training is accessible and part time work by volunteers is integrated.

      But having grand-pa go into a mine to dig for his “own” ore used for his own wheel chair is not a good idea. 😉

      what you indirectly show, is that a number of people that would not want to work full time year after year in a job they see as useful and necessary for society but that they dont like, would consider volunteering for if it was for a small amount of time. My guess is that if we would calculate the time required for essential functional jobs that aren’t popular, and divided that by half of the people able to do them, the number of hours per month might be low (considering all the jobs that would no longer exist or would be reduced with automation, and all the jobs that people would want to do).

    • Guy says:

      Isn’t the whole idea that people won’t have to dig ore? Machines will do all the tedious, boring, dangerous and dirty jobs…

  9. Renard says:

    Hoping people will volunteer is not a system, imo, its improvisation, and a receipe for disaster/inefficiency/shortages/supply-chain-breakdown/line-up-for-toilet-paper, etc.

    The same way you need to know if you are low on screws in a factory, to avoid finding out your just out of screws and the whole factory assembly line shuts down, it is vital to know how much human ressources/volunteers you have for all emergency/operational/maintenance jobs (and to some degree, its good to know about these for R&D/projects/Leisure).

    Like an inventory system, if theres a shortage of volunteers for task X, you need a system that signals a potential shortage before it occurs, an alarm to signal a shortage, signals the need for training[mastery] to expand the pool of potential participants, makes it visible (Fire fighters needed) so people are aware of what the community needs[purpose], and as a last resort, the same way you have a spare tire even if you might never use it, have a procedure to assign mandatory work thats as fair as possible (ex: random among qualified indivisuals with parameters, such as first calling upon people that are already volunteering to be stand-by, then lowing the selection parameter of people already volunteering for other tasks). For example if the pool of people for task Z includes individuals that are already volunteering for factory work X and others that are not doing anything, those working in a factory should be either less likley or be assigned less hours of task Z. You also wouldnt want a surgeon to be called for Mining duty. I would value someone training for mining operation as equivalent to volunteering to actually do massages.

    All the awakening, tech, automation, new values, etc, might make it less likely you will need the spare tire approach, and that when you do, you might just need it for a short perod like a day a week or a month, but imo you still need it.

    And for people that say this is authoritarianim, I would say that it needs to be a system people are willing to join while seeing its both A- a better alternative and B- reasonably Fair. Imo if its well organized, you could get a system where you do volunteer freely for various jobs that interest you, with either a small amount of work you dont like per month or the potential (on stand-by) to be called for something you might not want to do as a normal job.

    On the other side, there also needs to be a way to minimize needless use of materials for which theres few volunteers.
    If you neibor volunteers for 10 hours a week of mining saying Id rather play with my kids than sweat in a hell hole, but if no one and my neighbor dont want to volunteer I’ll step up to the plate and chore, and then the neighbor decides to make a 10 ton bronze statue of his chiwawa dog, the neibor thats toiling in the mine will be pissed when he sees he must work an extra 10 hours a week for 10 weeks for a frivalous use. Its just a simplistic situation, but you get the meaning, if people are volunteering and sacrificing there needs to be speed bump or information so people are aware.

    Monetary people will say this is what money does in part, but I think other mechanisms are required and need to be designed/prototyped/tested

    • Harald Sandø says:

      Totally agree with this. This system is already somewhat in place also, in the form of employer/employee databases designed to distribute people based on their skills and interests to needed jobs.

      And it’s not authoritarianism, it will only be a system helping people find interesting/needed tasks and at the same time keep society going round.

  10. TZMRicky says:

    If you are trely driven to make this revolution happen then you should coordinate your efforts with that of The Zeitgeist Movement which the admin here uses much of their material and ideas such as their films but let it be known that the zeitgeist films do not DIRECTLY IN EVERY WAY reflect the values of the movement, look at their FAQ.

    www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

    • Renard says:

      (im just looking around, sharing ideas and not related to this site btw)

      1- Why?

      2- The TZM had a forum and closed it. The forum did contribute in me understanding RBE ideas because I was able to easily ask questions, interact, see both criticism and answers to the questions/criticism (good point we dont have a fix for that aspect yet, and heres a solution to that question). Im in favor of cooperation and coordination, on a voluntary basis, but Im glad the person(s) that made this site didnt just join the branch of TZM and stop at that(I assume) but decided to create this site instead, it increases diversity, choice, means of interaction, angles of approach, its better has a whole. (And if 6 months from now theres a big scandal is associated with TZM, the ideas and pure information itself will be less affected).

      I favor cooperation and diversity, my 2 cents.

      • Renard says:

        Just to recap, I do think cooperation is a good idea (I just wanted to point out Im glad there’s diversity)

  11. Ahoog69 says:

    This site is fantastic, and precisely what I have been looking for!

    For many years now, I have thought about a grand evolution of our global society where money and the incessant desire for profit are replaced with the wise use of all of the Earth’s resources for the common good. Often, when I discuss the concept of a Resource Based Economy (RBE), the near-immediate response is that I support antiquated Socialist or Communist ideals. These labels must be dropped along with the misrepresented constructs they represent.

    Anyway, I wholeheartedly believe that an RBE can work, though it will likely only come about in one of two ways: the catastrophic and global failure of our current system(s) OR very gradually, perhaps over several generations. I think the latter is more likely the case, as more and more people become aware of the true nature of our current direction, and the immense benefits of a paradigm shift toward an RBE.

    To this end, the change – as others have indicated – MUST start with education. As Roxanne Meadows has noted, “the smarter your children are, the better off I will be.” Whether or not she initiated the idea, it holds great wisdom. But therein lies the challenge: breaking the old patterns, the ingrained concepts that are the foundation of the monetary system. My very young son is not yet aware of how this world works, and though I might desire that he learn otherwise, I fear that any effort on my part may be futile. Nevertheless, I will make it my mission to bring to his attention what this world could be, and that is doesn’t have to remain as it is.

  12. Will says:

    Coming from New Jersey. A few friends and I are itching for this change. I cant wait. Im just glad to know there are others out there on the RBE side. Lets hurry up I wanna see it before I die lol

  13. Moses007 says:

    Just wanted to say, I am new to this and it is consuming me completely. I read everything i find regarding this concept. I am wondering what can be done to start this revolution? I understand the role of technology in our society and i KNOW without money and profit as the driving factor, the factory i work in could be run almost completely by machines.

    The company I work for makes huge mining machines, which is what inspired me to post on this topic. There are already machines made that work off of remote control. A man can stand above ground with a R/C type controller and do the work of what used to take 100 men. ONE GUY. And never get a spec of dirt on his shirt. Most interesting part is we actually have huge welding robots that MAKE those machines. Machines making machines.

    We have other guys doing some things, but not because it can’t be mechanized, but because it just isn’t profitable to spend the money required. Also, it would be the end of about 400 guys jobs. If machines took over EVERYTHING in our world now, unemployment would be so high, people couldn’t afford to consume, making the mechanized processes moot.

    Thanks for the ideas, reading materials and dreams…

    • Harald Sandø says:

      Thanks for this comment. Yes, it has been consuming me for the last years as well. Really interesting to hear about how mining now is also almost 100% automated. There’s no doubt we could automate this whole world if we wanted it. But of course, our monetary system doesn’t allow it. Total automation would create a total collapse.

      So, how do we ‘start this revolution’…? First of all; Spread the knowledge. Tell your co-workers and bosses. Share this site, the Zeitgeist site and the Venus Project site. When enough people are informed about this it is bound to happen.

      There will of course be a difficult transition period. A lot of ‘legal stuff’ has to be figured out. Ownerships, properties, patents, etc. etc. Who will own what? No one own anything? It’s a difficult transition. We have to think about it together and suggest solutions to it. There’s not one way towards this goal.

      One thing we should NOT do, though, is to make the owners our enemies. We have to present this in a way so that they understand that giving up ownership will not be a disadvantage for them, but a benefit for them, and for everyone else. We have to make people understand that with a resource based economy and an automated, clean and healthy world, EVERYONE will get better lives, including the rich.

  14. Brandon King says:

    I agree completely with a RBE, but i agree with Jacques Fresco that it cant be done until technology will allow it to, such as Nanotechnology. When we have Nanoassemblers we will be able to take things apart and rebuild them on an atomic level making recycling very efficient and useful. 3D printers and nanotechnology will allow us to live kinda like in Star Trek how when they want something it is built on an as needed basis with the replicator. And Jacques believes that humans will make the decisions but robots and computers will just ensure that everything runs smoothly, such as the farms, the transportation, waste recycling, energy production, etc. etc.

  15. […] From: http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2011/06/will-a-resource-based-economy-work/ […]

  16. Boldhawk says:

    Unfortunately RBE and its implementation is far too simple, but far too complex to discuss in this type of blog, ans there is no way of segragating separate points or topics, and finding them again later… so maybe the admin here will fix that problem or use a more friendly blog/form software.

  17. Arch Angel says:

    A Better Solution

    Only problem is, someone left the most important element out of the equation. Without this element, the solution can’t work. Problems still can’t be solved using the solution, because blind self interest, needs and need for freedom would still exist. We know that force will not create happiness and therefore would prevent peace and rest, restlessness would result. Conflict between people, conflict between beliefs or ideas, conflict between regions, conflict of interest, overuse of natural resources, damage to our environment could be solved in a simple way that would synchronize with life as it is, life’s natural groove. Nice, easy, gentle. So what is this one element, what is missing from the equation, what is right in front of our noses that would transform everything, what is the solution that accomplishes everything required in one simple, “beautiful” equation? This element that is undervalued, undeveloped, misunderstood, ignored, overlooked, slighted and free. It is… love. When we love perfectly, love others perfectly, love creation perfectly, love ourselves perfectly, love all creatures and nature perfectly, then we will nurture it, care for it, preserve it. Love motivates us to do what is best for…. It is all interwoven. If we focus on perfecting and expanding our capacity to love, we can naturally pursue what is beneficial for everyone and everything as a natural driving desire. What do you think the parable about the fishes and the loaves is about? It explains love. The more you pass it around, the more of it there is to go around. You can’t fool a plant. Seeds don’t grow much in the dark under a bucket. Like love, they need light and cultivation. Tyranny and control do not cultivate love. All you need is love.

    • Harald Sandø says:

      Oh, absolutely. Love shown as GRATITUDE, GIVING, COLLABORATION, SHARING AND COMPASSION is crucial for a resource based economy to work.

    • mateorevolution says:

      (imo) Love is a romantic word to describe a bunch of feelings, emotions, and actions. On its own it simply means nothing. Love is regularly abused and misunderstood, hence love really is unique to the individual who receives it and projects it. More important than love (in this context) is global cooperation and a proper understanding of how we arrived here and what we should be here to do moving forward. I’m not against love.. I’m just against using it as the driving force for something as big as this proposed transition to a RBE. Before the RBE can ever happen..the population will need to give up certain childhood conditionings and mental addictions. Some of us will have to be willing to relearn certain values and understandings.. but it would need to be global in order for this to be successful for everyone. We would need to dedicate all news and media outlets to a global understanding of why our world is suffering, outline current world stats, encourage global participation and conversation, and clearly outline where we will end up if we don’t all come to an agreement for global peace and understanding. 50 years ago (I wouldn’t have been alive) but had I been.. I maybe wouldn’t be this passionate because although the RBE would still have been the best model even back then…I (we) would’ve not been able to spread the message and have these kinds of platforms for discussion.. my point being.. we CAN do this today… we have the ability to reach every corner of the world, we have the technology and the individuals to implement these technologies. What we are lacking now.. is the support from the population to want better than this..for all of us.

  18. tj says:

    thanks for the lengthy article/outline of issues pertaining to a RBE. the question instead however, could really be: how can we develop or make a RBE work?

    • mateorevolution says:

      •a global understanding of how we’ve arrived at these times

      •a global understanding of what will be given up, both materialistically and mentally.. as well as what will be gained. i.e. no more money in exchange for abundance for everyone

      •a global understanding of what a RBE is and how it will operate, processes, protocols

      •a global understanding of what needs to be done in order to transition to a RBE

  19. Tomasz says:

    Hi everyone,
    First of all, I love the idea of RBE and wish to live long enough to see it. For a long time I imagined such a society, and just couldn’t find the words to describe it as well as it is done here.
    There are some points I’d like to discuss:
    1. Children limit
    For some reason, it is not clear to me why the people would limit their families in such a way. I understand it would be good for the planet if the population wasn’t growing very fast, especially until all the mess (meaning litter, pollution) is cleaned up after mindless consumption, and before there is a way to populate the oceans. But it seems to me against the human nature to limit the number of children to two. It’s a biology – people feel the urge to reproduce, it is natural. Right now, it is somehow limited by the living condition, in some cases (some people would like to have more kids than they have, but are aware that they can’t afford it. This would be gone in RBE). So, how would that establish itself?
    2. Taking ‘jobs’ – how all requred tasks will be carried out. My thought is, that a Kanban system could do quite well. Imagine a big screen with list of tasks in a given area.One could see what tasks are occupied, and what tasks could do with some more personnel. Of course, it might be difficult to implement, as one would have to ‘track’ the number of people working on a task and the number of people required (but hey, people will have so much time to do that). Some management teams could do that, and maybe just make announcements: ‘Y more people needed to do Y at Z’. The computer system would handle the rest. What do you think? Am I overlooking something here?
    3. I was thinking about the Healthcare system. As everyone could (and probably would) travel a lot in an RBE world, it should be global – some kind of a large database with the person’s health history. Problem: imagine someone has an accident, and is unconsious. As there is no government, no-one has IDs. Or does one? Electronic chips? Fingerprints’ database? It could be seen as privacy violation. I can’t remember if it was discussed in TVP?
    4. Driving (flying, or whatever) license. Sure, automation of transport. But, say, one wants a cool speedy sports car – he gets it, of course. Turns off automatics – it’s not a joy to drive when the car makes everything for you, is it. But he has little experience, has coordination problems, and is *dangerous*. Not everyone should be *allowed* to drive. I think it is somewhat important. Any ideas on that?
    5. Crime. No government – ok. Much less crime in moneyless system – ok. But some crimes will happen, maybe under alcohol influence (people do strange things…), maybe some mental disorder – of course I agree such people should be helped, not punished. But would there be some kind of law? Basic set of rules of what is allowed and what is not? It would have to vary regionally – for example, sex with a 15 year old in some countris is a crime, in some it is not (now). One cannot fight the culture.
    6. Religion. I know it might be a TVP issue, but as I understand it, it would allow religion as such, but isn’t favourable of the religious institution. Am I correct? What about the temples? Religion is a big part of some cultures. I believe it shouldn’t (and maybe couldn’t?) be thrown away.
    Thanks for any replies, please correct me if I’m wrong at something, and I await some constructive discussion 🙂

    • mateorevolution says:

      Thanks to Harold Sando for writing this!

      In reply to your post @Tomasz (and thanks also for your post)

      I should preface by saying, I feel incredibly passionate about the prospect of a resource based economy and I hope through these discussions and many more that we will soon be able to initiate a global transition. Although I’ve put much thought into the many facets of the RBE.. I do not have all the answers..but I have come up with some pretty awesome ideas that could be grown upon and/or agreed upon. Now to your points in the order you wrote them:

      1. (imo) If we could get the human population to agree to the basic protocols for living in a RBE (protocols designed by engineers in their respective fields and agreed upon by the global community), people would be informed of the current over population issue, the devastating numbers of children without food, water, shelter.. and therefor would possess the understanding to agree to limiting child reproduction for the betterment of humanity and the agreed upon goals of one of the most important transitions in humanity… the transition to a real civilization.

      If we managed to change the way people think enough to actually start the transition to a RBE, there would be millions of children and young adults, that could and would need to be adopted by loving people/families around the world. Now young couples (and older) would have the opportunity to extend their love and guidance to someone who would otherwise be without. That could ultimately change the way people think about having children..at least while we transition towards a fully operational RBE. I say transition because… obviously it can’t and won’t happen overnight…but we could initiate a transition with clear achievable goals and timelines… and within our lifetime.

      2. Although in RBE most functions would be performed by computers, I agree we must leave room for the human element in which case I love the Kanban idea or something like it, whether posting the available work positions to our personal devices or on a big screen in the public areas..or both. With soo many humans on earth..not to mention the human beings that will now have a chance to contribute to society..we’d most likely not have enough work for everyone..but that would be okay..because people would be occupying their time with family, personal, or professional interests and passions..that could ideally lead to someone following a particular interest such as a love of science to become a major contributor to world science. Maybe if the population was a lot smaller like say, 7 million instead 7 Billion…maybe then we would have to worry about how we would cover all the necessary work functions. As I write this.. I get excited just thinking about a day when I (we) could wake up and be soo fully free that we can’t wait to contribute to the betterment of our society and world.

      3. The healthcare system could be very simple and ultimately hugely beneficial to everyone. Firstly, in a RBE, doctors wouldn’t be the people who could afford to become doctors (primitive monetary system incentives)…In a RBE those who are actually passionate about healthcare, medicine, and human service would now be our health and service professionals. Allowing for every human to be what they feel their full potential could/should be (based on our new society)…would most definitely create an abundance of care for all the world. Doctors would now be trained to make home visits a normal routine unless a more formal environment in necessary.

      As for needing medical care abroad, I agree, in a RBE it would be wise to have some kind of online profile (not necessarily visible to the public) but that would follow you where ever you are on earth. Kind of like a formal Facebook but without the ads and bullshit and with detailed and up-to-date information about your health status.

      4. Regarding public and personal travel; I won’t comment on personal flying vehicles yet because I don’t feel it is necessary to halt the RBE idea just because we haven’t figured out how to provide personal flying vehicles to the public.. I’m sure we will get there though! With public transportation, it would most likely be computer operated with maybe an onboard engineer in case of emergency or malfunction. Public transportation would naturally not require a certificate or license. However, I think it would be necessary for there to be a process for an individual to obtain a vehicle certificate or licence (for those who own personal vehicles) being that it involves public safety.

      4.a) The next question would be, who creates the process for obtaining a licence for driving? Who creates these protocols for the RBE? Short answer.. We do. being that soo many of us are already online, why not create a system that allows every single human the ability to vote on each and every process..yes this could take time to implement because we would have to find a way for those without computers to provide their thoughts..but it’s possible, it’s worth it, and it’s probably the most efficient way we can do it. This means that there is no authoritative figure dictating what will be. Instead, it would now be each community having the freedom to have a say in the creation of their community and world through an easily accessible online voting platform. And if you choose not to take part, that’s your own choice and therefor you risk being left out of community/world decisions..but with saying that…you’ll still be free..in most senses of the word.. in other words, there would be no punishment for those who choose to be reclusive and less involved.

      5. Crime – this is where the transition would be especially necessary.. in short, people commit crimes because they either need to in order to survive or because of their own conditioned and/or childhood abuses. In a RBE.. we would solve the first part by making things accessible to everyone.. for those who just choose to be irresponsible or deliberately disturbing.. again.. I would say depending on the crime, it should either come down to a community vote or in instances where someone commits a terrible crime effecting a person or family.. it would again be a vote by those persons and the community. This vote wouldn’t be to have the person in question executed but rather instead either removed from the RBE to a distant location for offenders who have been voted out of the community or placed in a facility for reform and mental help. Again, community involvement wouldn’t need to be enforced as there would be more than enough people that would want to be involved. The idea would be to slowly transition and dismantle a “police organization”. Perhaps all we would need in a RBE..would simply be community involvement and support..not bullies with a licence to kill.

      6. Religion is the worst form of mind decay and mental slavery available to the human population.. even if you’re one of those who only do kind deeds. The problem with religion (and there are many) and subscribing to the idea that there is a divine entity that either communicates through you or you to it is that..it’s all in your head.. it’s simply not real. And if you want to know what a society would be like where the majority of the population believes in make believe.. just turn on the news. Religion massages bad thinking into the minds of helpless children that continue to be misled by those who are supposed to protect them from lies and deceit. I don’t know how.. and this is a large part of my motivation..but religion and the belief in the unbelievable needs to become a thing of the past… a very embarrassing past! The only place for religious scripture is in an education or library facility where people can have access to text written by early primitive humans and their attempts at story telling..maybe taught as early literature…but never as an authoritative text. Unless you’re okay with rape, slavery, hate crimes, etc..

      “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
      -Steven Weinberg

      My apologies to anyone who is offended by my remarks on religion/beliefe in god.. but if it bothers you.. you should ask yourself why your god allows for such a terrible margin of error by simply watching as over 9Million children die each year in the most unimaginable ways..and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. If you’ve completely lost your mind..you’ll probably say something like “god works in mysterious ways or because they aren’t praying to the right god or don’t worry..god will reward them in the afterlife” – For those of you who think this way.. you are actually a major part of the decay of this planet and society and you should reconsider your position on your world views. Science doesn’t answer it all..but it says soo much more than any scripture could ever offer. I love that I came from a dying star.. not only is that the coolest idea but it’s remarkably poetic. THINK. Would you believe in your Christian god if you were raised by Muslim parents in a muslim society? Probably not.

      Thanks for your time and allowing this rant!
      mateorevolution

  20. RBE_FAN says:

    It’s very late, and I don’t have time to read many of the posts here, but I just want to say that I think that a RBE would need to be approached from the status quo. In other words, to start, everyone would carry on as though nothing was changing.
    Now, you would start all society aiming in the direction of RBE. Everyone in a menial job would work towards making their job obsolete. meanwhile all kinds of safety nets would need to be planned, so that no one is adversely affected by the changes. all means of life support would need to be guaranteed, in order for the transition to work.
    For instance universal health care would need to be instituted. Food distribution would be a major priority and many people, who find that their jobs are obsolete could be temporarily employed in the food distribution efforts. (Water is included in food distribution)

    Housing would also be a priority and many people could be employed in the housing effort . Everyone would be paid a fair wage for their efforts, even though at some point they will have no use for their money.
    People in the advertising industry would have a new job using their powers of persuasion to sell people on the new way of life. I have more to say, but it’s late and I’m tired, so I’ll end here for now.

    Peace and love to all.

  21. Michael says:

    I hear what you are saying about human nature. Take away all the scarcity and the greed and the crime and we are a bunch of really nice people. Yes we are intrinsically altruistic and caring of others. It shouldn’t matter about skin colour/differences in culture and all the other divisions between us because, underneath it all, we all want the same; a better world for all of us and for all of our children. I sincerely believe that.
    However, I can’t quite get my head around the notion of 7 billion people pulling together and ‘gifting’ everybody of their labour and the sharing of property and all other resources. That would surely require a hell of a lot of organisation on a global scale and some very strong, centralised direction, not to mention, enforcement.

    • admin says:

      Hm….will it? Aren’t we doing that already? I mean, gifting?

      As I see it, gifting is a huge part of our lives already. Whether you are a volunteer in a project, or simply makes a dinner for friends, you are gifting. If you are contributing to the development of Ubuntu (Google it), you are gifting. If you write or edit an article on Wikipedia, you are gifting. Do I need to continue…?

      Even when you do a job you get paid for, you are in a way gifting. You have ‘volunteered’ to get paid to do that job. You CAN quit. Sure, if you REALLY need that income, you won’t, but that doesn’t mean you CAN’T. In any case, if you aren’t on the low low bottom of things, but actually have some choice between jobs, you are ‘gifting’ yourself to the company you choose to work for. And, they are ‘gifting’ you a salary.

      You see, we already live in a large degree IN a gift economy. Only that we have let our ‘gifting’ be ‘smudged’ by money.

      Just think about it. If we, instead of TRADING (‘I will only give you something if you give me something back’) simply starts GIFTING (‘I will give you something regardless of what you give me back’) we will have the same world in a way, but without money.

      Think, if a stranger gives you something you feel is of value to you, like a massage, you will automatically feel a certain amount of gratitude and feel like giving something back. But to give back to this particular person is difficult since you don’t know him, won’t see him again and is no good at giving massages. Then, what’s you option?

      Pay it forward!

      Not necessarily with a massage, but with something else that you are good at and is needed in society.

      When we start giving to each other in stead of trading with each other, the gratitude we feel will be the ‘currency’ that will flow around in this society. When you give to me, I can give to you, but I can also give to the next one.

      And a giving society where we don’t keep track of how much we give (other than our own conscience) is a much much much much much much much much much simpler society than a trading society where there is kept track of every cent that changes hands.

      Yes, our mindset have to change, or rather wake up, to this reality. It is truly a liberating feeling to be able to, for instance, leave my bike unlocked at the grocery store without any worry. And then walk into the store and pick what I need and walk out without paying, and then do MY part in this world, knowing that my part then is something needed, not something that first and foremost makes the owners of my company richer.

      And then think about how all of us now can utilize clean energy and technology, and develop technology to the best for everyone, not for one company’s profit.

      A resource based economy will be a network of local communities and cities sharing whatever resources they might possess in their vicinity that might be of use to the common good and at the same time optimizing their own practices in sustainable living.

      On a small scale, we will have individuals doing their work ‘for free’ for each other and the community, and on a large scale we will communicate the need for different types of resources that might have to be brought from one place on the planet to another.

      Today, we are coordinating a huge world of commerce with highly complex systems of production, transport and distribution all over the planet. Technically, there is no problem to do the same within a resource based economy. A resource based system would also be a 100 times simpler than the tiresome constant egotistical trade and competition that goes on all the time around the planet. With the trade system we have all the money that has to shift hands, taxes, lawyers, accountants, banks, insurance companies, and what have you in ADDITION to the counting and weighing of the actual resources. With an RBE system we only need to ‘count and weigh’ the resources to make sure we stay within the caring capacity of the planet. Well, there’s a lot more to be said about RBE, but it would take a book. Maybe I’ll write one one day. In any case, RBE is simpler, better, more natural, more just and more efficient that today’s system will ever be.

      The only thing we need is an awakened human mind.

  22. Rob says:

    First I just wanna say that this site is just amazing! Keep it up fellow scandinavian, btw är du svensk? 😉

    “Can RBE work?”… anything can work if we just ALL agree on a change.. so should we agree on RBE?… I say YES with a capital Y E S ! its just a matter of time before we all are aware of this and I cant imagen our world wanting to keep “hitting our heads against the wall” once we do realize the TRUE living a RBE model of life will bring

    My only concern is really how far the “government of money” are willing to go to protect its treasure and slavemaster “the money” before they too give up, change their mindset and understand that this is vitally needed… but are they gonna go so far that Nature itself will be the only one capable of stopping them? if so.. then things will get very nasty in the near future.. ofc things NEED to get worse.. but how much worse? damn,, its an evil thought…

    To be honest, there is also one thing that is making me a bit sceptical here… life on this planet is very selfish… we only protect our closest really (all life not just humans)… and the money system is also built kinda like that.. its a selfish system.. so do they go hand in hand “life and this system”??… or can we break out of this selfishness and unite all as one?? well… maybe we can… we are also the first species that can make a choice.. and to HELP one another DO feel good… so I guess there is still hope…. I hope…

    Thanks again for this site! Awesome stuff!! Luv you all!

  23. Lobma says:

    I’ve been reading your site for sometime now, coming to it via the Venus Project. Yes a RBE seems be the only sensible way forward for humanity. But as we all know, that the vested interests of wealth, and greed will do anything to safeguard their present lifestyles, Also, most of the worlds media, owned as it is by powerful individuals, will never give much credence to ideas such as proposed here. So I sadly feel that a RBE will stay right on the fringes for sometime until, the whole economic mess starts to collapse. We can see this happening now, although it remains to be seen whether the forces of vested interests stand by and let it happen or be able to do anything to stop the realisation taking root within more and more people, that greed and self interest only benefiting the few.

    I never vote, for voting only perpetuates the system, and try as much as possible to ignore the whole society nonsense, not watching any TV and reading very few media outlets.

    No, we don’t need 30 types of shampoo, supermarkets foods, new clothes every week or endless new gadgets that are make from finite resources.

    Your RBE is the only system that makes sense and I am so glad to have found you.

    One slight niggle, please use your spell checker a little more 🙂

    • admin says:

      Thank you. When it comes to spelling, feel free to register and go over the document. 🙂 Anyone can register here, and I can give you permission as an editor. I admit I haven’t put too much energy on spelling sometimes, but have concentrated on getting the messages out instead. 😉

    • Shock Me says:

      I think I disagree slightly here. One person may not NEED 30 varieties of shampoo to use at once but certainly an advanced, automated, and efficient system could create a unique blend for every person wanting one.

      Or say, for example, one of feet was a different size than another. You could just be scanned and your clothes and shows would be tailored to your body and would not need to be created until they are needed.

  24. anonymouse says:

    Gtjhuang brought up a good point, but failed miserably in his assumptions as to how this could work. It is inherently wrong to force any system on society by way of indoctrinating, aka brainwashing, people, to include children. While parenting itself may seem selfish to him, the question begs to be asked: how is ‘parenting’ in a government regulated environment any less selfish? If parents are selfish in wanting to raise children, then it stands to reason that government is selfish in any situation that allows the government to parent those same children.

    Are we evolved enough? Sure. What more does the human body need to be able to implement RBE? Nothing. Mindset has little to do with evolution and everything to do with societal culture and personal opinions. I live in the US, a highly capitalist country, yet, without even realizing it (I have only just heard of RBE), I have been practicing many of these principles. I have produced and given the fruits of my labor away for less return than even a thank you in some cases. Would it make sense to say I am more evolved than other humans? No, my DNA bears little difference from anyone else’s. Perhaps through evolution, humans will one day have even more variations in hair color, skin color, eye color, face shape, and the like, but I do not see how any of that matters in terms of whether or not we perceive money as necessary.

    The main problem I see in an RBE is that those who hoard money now will likely wish to hoard resources in an RBE. Logistics can be figured out easily enough-it is removing the mental disease known as greed from society and from individuals. Sadly, big pharma thrives on greed and is unlikely to develop a cure or to even allow such destructive mindsets to be classified as diseased.

  25. JustinG says:

    lol

    Well lucky for you my Dad’s a mechanic.

  26. JustinG says:

    Imagine if every government in the world made the decision to abolish banks, abolish corporations, abolish money, and abolish the private ownership of intellectual property; all in one day.

    What we’d find is a whole lot of people with a whole lot of time on their hands all of a sudden and all the resources they need to fulfill their current desires. All we’d have to do is create a to do list and tell people what needs to be done and people will do it.

    We currently have the technology to provide a better standard of living for every man woman and child on this planet but no-one has access to it because a group of elitists at the top of the chain have all the money and use it to control the IP.

    Make the technology accessible and people will work tirelessly to eliminate starvation, unnecessary illness, inequitable housing. and insufficient essential services all over the world. War would end because people will help each other build their societies instead of pillaging them for their own benefit. Crime would decrease dramatically because no-one would steal anything and if they did it wouldn’t matter. We could in fact use our human ingenuity and desire to create a better world; to put an end to all the worlds problems tomorrow.

    I believe a transition to a resource based economy would put an end to starvation and unnecessary illness in one season. I don’t believe we would have to consume any less than we do today. All we have to do is commit to making things sustainably through complete life-cycle management.

    Ponder this for a moment…..

    Does a Toyota Camry have any less metal in it than an Aston Martin? What if you said I want an Aston Martin and the government said sure…. here’s the resources for your Aston Martin, here’s all the machinery and tools you need to build it. it’ll take a week to build it but you’re going to have to build it yourself. You’re going to have to do 100 points of community service first so when you’ve got your hundred points bring them in and we’ll book you in to the next available spot in the manufacturing plant.

    Would you do it?

  27. QuantumMonkey says:

    I agree 100% on the RBE model, and I believe mankind has to get to that model to survive as a specie.

    I also believe that the RBE model will deeply change the “nature” of mankind, because without the “mental problems” that the “money+profit” model puts into the brains of everyone the creativity and the fantasy of mankind will have a big boost and this, coupled with the new “sense of freedom” that will come along with the end of the money+profit+ ownership system, will “change intimately” the nature of us.

    Also, the new system will bring along a new form of “education” of our children. Schools will not only train for 8 hours a day the “logical, rational and mathematical” side of our brain only, but also the inner processes that are linked to what is “creativity” inside our brain.

    New model, new system as RBE will bring a “new” man or a new “man” will bring a new system? It’s the old question about the chicken and the egg… who came first ;)?

    • admin says:

      Thank you for a very good comment. Yes, the age old chicken and the egg…. I think clearly, the first initiative must come from a ‘new man’, which it has already. And this mindset has already started to take root in people, judging on the vast interest for this solution. The question is about the transition. How will it happen? Clearly, it can not and will not happen in a ‘one big swoop’ with someone building new cities all over the planet and we just ‘move in’ and have a jolly good resource based economy. That’s unrealistic.

      I think a more realistic alternative is the creation of moneyless villages (with or without money, whatever is possible) that grow their own food and distribute it among themselves for free, and continue to utilize the free resources the land gives in the form of plants and animals in a permaculture setting. And that one eventually can get free technological resources from individuals, companies and governments that see the value in this direction and that it spread this way. Then, when living in a village like that, a person will definitely change as a result of the ‘freedom felt’ when living a moneyless, sharing and giving life.

      Eventually, when this direction takes root, larger more complex city projects can be started.

      • Shock Me says:

        With regard to the chicken and the egg problem: What came first was something that was not quite yet a chicken laid an egg which contained the first bird that had all the features of a chicken. The idea of species is mental construct that helps us describe the world around us.

        In the same way, I suspect any transition to an RBE/MLE will be preceded by a technology that provides abundant inexpensive (inexpensive in terms of the materials and time required to obtain it) energy to a world that has eked out every efficiency it could in a time of energy scarcity.

        For example, the introduction of highly efficient solar PV cell in concert with a highly energy-efficient LED grow-light would lead to less energy intensive automated food production. Or the same PV cell in concert with nanotech filters to provide clean drinking water.

        • Harald Sandø says:

          All the technology we need is there. All we need is to wake up to the awareness of it, and change our minds about trading vs. sharing.

        • Pierce says:

          I can think of a few potential hiccups:

          Some parts/members of society today would read the above statement about the chicken evolving and freak out. This same person would immediately discredit everything else on this web page as being “a bunch of hippy bullshit” and go back to amazon.com or facebook.com (lol Facebook <- :D(did it again) gets autocorrected into a capitalized word now?? *giggles like a school girl* that just furthers my point! lawlz anyways…).

          At some point there will be an impasse between the people who are getting the widely recognized "higher education" (in the form of science and open thought about history) and the people and organizations who have historically been in opposition to radical new changes/ideas (religious groups mainly, but also some totalitarian regimes aka. North Korea).

          Now maybe due to their "higher education" these forward thinking types (let's face it, you and me are probably "forward thinking" if we are even using a computer, let alone actually considering implementing a RBE in our lifetimes) will be able to see a way to placate the masses of religious/occult/indoctrinated/brainwashed/whatever "OTHERS" and make them see the proverbial light, but if we don't tread carefully we could very well see some nut job (who by the way thinks they are doing us all a favour) set off all the nukes and snuff goes the little blue dot.

          Just a tad of warning…

          – Cheers, Pierce Hart

          • Paula says:

            My idea is to start small.

            Start with one city of the forward-thinking folks.
            My problem is resources; I’d love to go full-tilt into it but I have limited funds so how would I get there and how would I live until it could be built to support me?

  28. JustinG says:

    First of all this is one of the best websites I have ever visited and thank you so much for delivering it.

    You make so many thought provoking and well considered points and the resources you string together on this site have restored my faith in the future within 24 hours.

    On the question of will we find people to do the dirty work…..

    I worked in aged care for 17 years. I cleaned colostomy bags with a hangover, got shit on, pissed on, puked on, you name it. One guy even vomited up blood all over me and died in my arms.

    I didn’t do it for the money – everyone knows aged care workers get paid crap. I did it for the higher purpose. and if I didn’t have bills to pay I’d be doing it for free.

    I’m sure if there’s a job in the community that really needs doing, there will be plenty of people who recognize the need and are prepared to do it for the higher purpose.

    If it’s that grubby that no-one wants to do it then we’ll have to invent a machine or change our practices so that we can eliminate that job.

  29. Richard says:

    Third, you mention aquaponics and hydroponics alongside permaculture. Good that someone finally recognises the value of permaculture for once, but the other two are tech-heavy, artificial methods that surely require a certain energy input, rather than maximising what is naturally available and possible, as with the latter. Maybe they might have some application where the ability to grow food naturally is difficult, but other than that, are such artificial methods the best way?

    • admin says:

      ‘Permaculture’ means ‘permanent culture’, in the sense that we have a 100% sustainable system where plants, animals and humans coexists and there is no ‘waste’, since one species ‘waste’ is another species’ food. This goes for aquaponics and hydroponics as well, as the nutrients for the plants in hydroponics can be derived from plant material and/or animal ‘waste’, and in aquaponics it is ‘built in’ in the system, as the plants gets its nutrients directly from the fish that swim in the same water where the plants grow, and opposite, the fish gets nutrients from the plants. So this can be set up as a 100% self sustaining system, only needing sunlight and water. In aquaponics, the water will also be cleaned in the almost closed system it is.

      And both aquaponics and hydroponics would be perfect as a ‘back up’ system in a permaculture setting. And up north, where I live, one can grow fruit and vegetables year round in a system like this, while growing only outside, one is left with only about 4 months of growing time. One can also fine tune the nutrients (naturally derived from plant and animal ‘waste’) needed for certain plants, when given directly in the water, giving bigger crops and more nutritious food. Besides, the harvesting can also be automated in a much higher degree than in a permaculture garden (until we get robots that do the picking, that is).

      So I would say that permaculture, in the sense of ‘outdoor natural growing’, and aqua/hydroponics are complementing each other in a perfect way.

      • Pierce says:

        One could say that the perfect aquaponics system would be nearly indistinguishable from the “real McCoy” that is nature.

        Also, even a huge plastic and glass tower with robots and automated systems can be considered “natural” if viewed in certain ways. People traditionally think of natural stuff as “growing without human input” and just “there before people kinda thing”, but the way humans have recently continued their own evolution not through proteins and acids like DNA and RNA, but have become the first species to evolve through their own imagined and created tools speaks volumes for the power of nature.
        Even mother nature doesn’t bat an eye when faced with one of her own creations – humans – making “unnatural constructs” (whatever that means) she just keeps on trucking.

        Nature uses our own constructs to evolve us. One could say that a human with a cochlear implant is a step in evolution, because they have adapted to their environment to better survive through gaining back lost hearing function. This to me is not very different than a bird species developing specialized feathers in order to better attract females to mate with. The difference being that with humans it is our tools that are evolving now, not so much our DNA.

        This is part of the reason I laugh at a movie like Avatar. *SPOILER* The paraplegic human becomes a giant blue ape through a neural uplink between two bodies and they have the audacity to allude that open pit mining is unnatural. Sure it can be seen as ugly, but so can a cow taking a huge dump.

        If we saw a badger digging a hole to get at a stick which it then uses as a tool to dig up a termite nest (not sure if badgers even eat termites) we wouldn’t frown and say, “Oh that badger is going against mother nature digging around like that just for a stick.” The analogy is humans strip mining a big hole in the ground for Unobtainium to power their tools (space ships, mechs, fancy neural uplink gear) and a more intelligent alien race/god looking on and saying, “Oh those humans are going against mother nature digging around like that just to power their random shit they think up.”

        I’m guessing James Cameron wanted this to be lesson against pit mining for coal on Earth, but I feel like the message of an otherwise great movie is wasted on quite a majority and the people who do understand the underlying message can see the above problems with it.

        Nature is anything around you, even a computer program is natural in this sense, because it is created by humans which are a part of nature.

        Just another viewpoint, feel free to correct any of my mistakes 🙂

        – Cheers, Pierce Hart

        ^ P.S. Funny thing related to the trust issue of a transition to RBE:

        I never understood that “never give out your name online” thing we were all told in high school. It just increases the amount of anonymous asses and trolls able to hide behind that blank baby blue faceless Facebook man/woman. I mean sure identity theft could suck, but don’t you have to be a freakishly materialistic person to care that much about someone stealing your money/info? I feel like if a security measure takes away more than its giving in freedoms then it is worse than the thing you are trying to protect against… I laugh every time I’m made to take my damn shoes off at an airport. I realize they don’t want people to blow us all up, but you gotta wonder how many previously ok people decided to get a little revenge for the two hour lineup and sew laptop batteries into their soles next time. 😛
        I’m also covered in debt from going to school to become a Mechanical Engineer, so maybe getting my bank stuff stolen right now might not be so bad lol, “go ahead take my negative $98,000 balance account if you wish heheh good for you mister Nigerian Prince ;D “.

        • Harald Sandø says:

          I agree completely about your notion of ‘nature’, Pierce, but I have a different perception of the message of Avatar than what you describe here… I won’t argue whether pit mining is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’, and I don’t think that is the point with that movie either. Rather, the point is about how some people bulldoze over others, not seeing the beauty and value that is there, and not heeding the right to live of the people who are already living there, which of course is what is happening all over out planet when Big Oil and others bulldoze over, pollute and destroy environments where indigenous people have lived for millennia.

          Sure, ‘pit mining’ is as natural as a badger digging a whole in the ground, and sure, there are volcanoes doing just as much harm as humans. But that doesn’t mean we have to remove our own brains and hearts and bulldoze over beauty, people, wildlife and history only to get the ‘unobtainium’, does it? It looks like you are pro RBE, but then you should also understand that in a global RBE we will respect and love each other and our environment, building up as much beauty and compassion as possible. 🙂

          Sure, if a ‘pit mine’ is absolutely necessary to obtain a much needed mineral in the world, and everyone who lives there and has lived there for centuries is ok with it, and it doesn’t harm the environment, then go for it. But if there are alternatives that are better, go for them instead. Like the tar sands in Canada. That is only done for profit and to feed the addiction to oil that has successfully been built up by the greedy minds of the world.

          We could have had a 100% hydrogen and/or battery driven car fleet today if it hadn’t been for the greed. And the energy could have come from totally pollution free renewables like the sun, wind and water. Speaking about energy, there are so many ‘free energy’ approaches out there today that claims to work, that I can believe all of them are scams. So, there’s another pollution free renewable. And to make ‘full circle’. If there is an ‘understated message’ in Avatar, it could well be that there are other, free and better energy sources that can be utilized. There’s really no need to destroy surroundings and habitats to dig up any kind of ‘unobtanium’. Not on Pandora, not on Earth.

  30. Richard says:

    Firstly can I ask how things like cradle-to-cradle design, recycling and so on are necessarily dependent on a monetary economy? Can they not as much be features of a RBE?

    Seocndly, assuming that people do things simply because they devive some meaning or purpose from it presuppposes that a. people will find meaning and purpose in doing something worthwhile and b. that all the things people find worthwhile will somehow fit every specialism, every ‘niche’ in the system, and make it work smoothly. Bit like the whole ‘invisible hand’ mentality all over again, only without the money. Somehow, it is assumed, it ‘just works’. But what if there are important jobs no-one wants to do, and we haven;t got round to creating the technology to automate those processes? Sure, we have machines to automate many manufacturing processes, but not every industrial process from raw material extraction to finished product, and no machines to fix the machines that go wrong. Somebody, somewhere along the line, may have to do a job no-one will do, and how do you persuade them?

    • admin says:

      Hi,

      Good questions.

      ‘Somebody, somewhere along the line, may have to do a job no-one will do, and how do you persuade them?’

      With cookies and milk, maybe…? 😉 The main point is that ‘the reward is in the task itself’, but I totally get that this might be far fetched with some tasks. It’s difficult to say, though, what would motivate one person. Even today, many people, scientists, etc. are not motivated by money, but by…’the task itself’. Not to say that everyone are like that.

      I think we have to ‘wait for those tasks’ and then see what we can do to get them done, if no one really want’s to do them. There are lot’s of ‘rewards’ we can come up with if we put our minds to it. Rewards that doesn’t have to do with money of any kind, but with tokens of gratitude from the people one does it for. Volunteer workers around the world do it for many reasons, but one may be the gratitude felt from the people they help. Another is the adventure it is to be doing a task like that in a foreign country.

      ‘What needs to be done’ can also be ‘social service tasks’ for young people. It can be a mandatory year, or years, in young people’s lives, where they have to choose one or more ‘social service’ tasks.

      You must also remember that there will be millions of people not having a ‘job’ anymore, people who used to work as clerks, in banks, in finance, in insurance, with taxes, as lawyers, with advertising, etc. etc. In addition, ALL people will get much more spare time on their hands, as one only needs to do work really needed for society, which is much less than all the work that was needed to keep the monetary system running. My guess is that many of these would rather do something, anything, for the society, rather than go idle every day. And, since the total amount of work that needs to be done is much less, one person doesn’t have to slave for hours every day on one boring task week after week, year after year. No, now one can rotate those tasks between all those who would really like something to do.

      Well, that’s how I see it at least.

      Personally, I wouldn’t mind doing some ‘dirty tasks’ now and then if it is needed in society. And if it is really needed in society, it is meaningful to me. What was meaningless, was the work done to feed the monetary machine. In that sense, ALL work in RBE would be meaningful.

      What about you? What do you think? Would you contribute to society in RBE? Would you do a ‘dirty and boring task’ now and then, if it is needed?

      This is interesting to get some answers on.

      • Pierce says:

        Yes because I would most likely get cookies and milk from you good sir 🙂

    • admin says:

      About the cradle-to-cradle and recycling, I never meant that they don’t belong in RBE. Of course they do. The point is that the ones who promote them today DON’T have a new economic system in mind. They blindly promote these methods as a way for society to continue it’s endless consumption,and for the monetary system to keep going with a ‘good conscience’. In RBE, cradle-to-cradle and recycling will of course be a part of the system, even though products will be made to last much much longer than today, and much less recycling will be necessary.

  31. JustinG says:

    @ gtjhuang & Ryder Spearman

    @ gthjuang

    Humans are quite capable of transition to a Resource Based Economy right now. They do not require calibration at birth. All that is required is the knowledge about why the current economic system (Money) does not serve humanity moving forward; and the knowledge that a better economic system is feasible.

    I can tell that you have been calibrated well by the communist party which is fundamentally no different from capitalism.

    Please get help.

    @ Ryder Spearman

    Likewise I can tell that you have been calibrated well by the capitalists and I would also implore you to get help for that.

    Ryder, You make many bold claims in your protracted response to this article however you also say nothing new. Your arguments echo through the capitalist camp with religious fervor and I have heard them all before. The trouble with your arguments is that they rely entirely on broad generalization and capitalist hegemony;and have absolutely no foundation in fact. The distinct lack of any reference to anything but your own model of the world is testament to that.

    It is no surprise to hear your assertion that people require management to be productive, as you are a self proclaimed manager. I offer my own theory as an alternative while recognizing that it is at least as adequate as yours in terms of it’s empirical provability and replicability.

    When people are provided with adequate resources to fulfill their self determined needs; they do not as you suggest, spend their days “contemplating the universe”, for this is a shallow empty activity. Rather, they would contemplate their environment in terms of their own possible contribution and set towards making that contribution in accordance with their individual strengths and talents. Those who derive a sense of fulfillment from raking the leaves would be happy to contribute their services to other members of their community, even perhaps to those who enjoy managing large groups of people. God forbid the raker of leaves and his contribution to society might even be considered as valuable as that of the upper middle manager and be rewarded as such.

    Whether one can be described as a communist, a capitalist, a socialist, an altruist or any other “ist”, The argument here is ultimately whether or not a Resource Based Economy can feasibly replace the currently dominant Monetary Economy.

    The Monetary Economy has carried societies through many ages however during that time some fundamental flaws in this system have been illuminated. These flaws exist in numbers to numerous to discuss here however it is enough to say that one need not look far beyond ones own doorstep to recognize that this system is unsustainable in environmental, community and resource management terms.

    The Resource Based Economy has also carried societies through many ages and until about 200 years ago was the dominant Economic model around the world. The biggest threat to the resource based economy has been, and is in fact the monetary economy because while the resource based economy is based on principles of mutually shared property and contributions to society, the monetary economy relies on imperialism and servitude to transfer wealth from the common good to the elite few. The monetary economy requires the breakdown of community ownership to sustain itself.

    As the injustices and iniquities of the Monetary Economy become more obvious the tide is turning toward recognition of the more sustainable and equitable Resource Based Economic Model and it is only a matter of time before Money is no more and Community is everything again.

    My prediction is that between 2020 and 2025 resource based economies will be implemented in every country of the world and you’ll be able to print yourself as much money as you want whenever you want it but no matter what you write on it, it won’t be worth any more than the paper it’s printed on.

  32. Rikka says:

    A resource-based economy will work because we will make it work. 🙂 Part of that transition would be letting go of some of the conveniences we have come to rely on, and that is a perfectly healthy process. Unfortunately, there would be a lot of resistance to such a change in today’s world because so many millions have become accustomed to everything disposable. If something you have breaks, it is only a matter of going to the store or getting online to buy another one. Those who love capitalism will fight against eliminating money as currency because they want to hoard as much money as possible for their own wealth. When we are trading resources instead of bills, it is much more difficult to hoard wealth. My hope for the world is that people will eventually shape it for the benefit of all, instead of the benefit of a few. 🙂

    • admin says:

      I’m with you all the way, except for the ‘trade resources’ statement. Don’t know if that was a slip of the tongue, or a slight misunderstanding. RBE is not about ‘trading’ anything. That’s the whole concept. We don’t trade, barter, buy or sell. We simply share. 🙂

  33. David Ludovino says:

    On the ore mining problem. In a RBE people would take ‘dirty jobs’ just for the feeling of belonging (being useful) and with a pure will to give. Even regretting those jobs they would still receive much respect and love from all other humans. That would impel them to continue and perhaps make them appreciate what they’re doing.

    In response to Subhendu Das comment. You wrote, “We go to a store and buy everything we want, but there is no need to pay, because there is no money. If we want to live in a big house, we hire a contractor; he builds it free for us. If we want to travel; we book the flight, and travel free, stay in a hotel free.”
    This is still seeing the world with the ‘monetary goggles’ or in other words seeing it in the consumerism way. I like the term Resource Based because it implies that whatever you do must be based on the available resources. I know you’re surely past this issue but when explaining the Money-Less Economy to others you can’t promise that they’ll have whatever they want for free. No, instead they’ll have whatever the world as to offer.
    If they want something that the world can’t offer yet they’ll have to ‘do the job’, pioneering and giving they’re little push (i.e. they’ll have to contribute to get what they want in the long run).

  34. […] Excerpted from a reflection on a non-monetary economy, from the Moneyless Society blog : […]

  35. Subhendu Das says:

    Here is an alternative design of money-less economy (MLE). I think the words “resource based” creates confusions.

    It is well known that the money is free for the Fed. It is a private bank and only it can print money without any restrictions, at anytime, and by any amount. Since the money is free for the Fed, it should be free for everybody. We should not have to pay it back; there should not therefore be any debt or deficit. Thus the Fed has artificially created the taxation, periodic payment, interest rate etc. At the core of capitalism then we really have a free or MLE now.

    Let us examine the status of money today. We are all dealing with electronic money these days. Our employment checks are deposited electronically by our employers in our banks. We buy things using our credit cards. We pay the bills using our computers. Thus the money is just a number in some database on some computers. That number goes up and down and controls our life styles. Now we ask do we need that number to control us.

    Instead of trusting that number on a computer why not we all trust ourselves and work for free? We go to our work places and work just like we are doing it now. The only difference is that we do not get paid. The computer number changes to 40 hours. Government tracks this number. We all become dedicated servant for the society, for the people, for the government, and finally for the god for 40 hours per week every week. Note that this means only meaningful work for the society will be required. In return we get everything we want for free.

    We go to a store and buy everything we want, but there is no need to pay, because there is no money. If we want to live in a big house, we hire a contractor; he builds it free for us. If we want to travel; we book the flight, and travel free, stay in a hotel free. Everything will be free because everybody is working free. You can enjoy any kind of life style you want. MLE is thus not socialism. People will still have to work otherwise there will be no food or shelter.

    Buddha and Gandhi have established a method of austerity and the self control of mind, body, and soul to reduce the need for money. This is a solution at the individual level. Milton Friedman has proposed the elimination of the central bank. US president Jefferson proposed printing money by the government. Both Friedman and Jefferson essentially said the same thing; and their approach gives a global solution to our poverty. But our approach of MLE is more profound and provides cleaner solution to all our problems.

    This MLE will eliminate environmental pollution and the wars. It will eventually kill the pollution of our souls by removing greed, corruption, violence, cheating, and lying. MLE will eliminate poverty from the world permanently. The MLE will allow us to create products that we really need and nothing, like cigarettes, can be imposed on us by the investors. There will be no investment banking system. In fact the whole financial system including the central banks will not be required any more. We will have more people working for real benefits of the society.

    It may appear that the MLE model ignores the value of education. Many people who introduced technology, like Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Wright Brothers, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs etc. were not formally educated. Thus education is not necessary to create a new technology.

    In a MLE only those people who love education and knowledge will pursue such activities. The concept of hard and easy work will be replaced by love for work. There will be always people who will aspire for knowledge and will go for anything it takes to achieve that wisdom, the history of mankind demonstrates that.

    In MLE, since you get free whatever you want, there is no need for a merit evaluation system. You cannot and should not compare two different persons or two different jobs. It will be like comparing apples and oranges.

    For comments please write to: subhendu.das@excite.com

    • admin says:

      Hi,

      Thanks for the comment. We need elaborations like this. But what you describe is in my eyes the essence of a resource based economy. I don’t care what we call it, it is a moneyless society in it’s basis where we all give without expecting anything in return and receive without feeling the need to give anything in return.

      • Subhendu Das says:

        The words “resource based economy” (RBE) camouflages the words “money-less economy” (MLE). I think it creates confusions also. The RBE includes the MLE. There is no need to focus on resource management. MLE should be the main objective. We should be able to say boldly, what we are looking for, and be able to argue and convince people about the MLE.

        The RBE makes an assumption which is not valid. It assumes that people will demand things in the same way we demand now. That will not happen if you introduce MLE. The philosophy of mankind will change under MLE.

        The absence of money will make us pure and selfless again. We will no longer go after someone to steal his or her wallet. This MLE (money-less economy) will slowly bring us back to nature, we will start loving ourselves; we will have confidence on ourselves. Once we focus on ourselves, it will automatically change our mindset and we will start loving others also. We will again feel for the preservation of our environment.
        This personal change will bring changes in the society, our culture, religion, and education. The practice of religion depends on money now. In MLE that practice will also change, the religion will be transformed. Poverty will go away from the world. Peace will come to the world; there will be no more wars.
        All these changes will bring changes in our demands for our products. Life will become simpler, loving, and peaceful. We will demand for new kind of products and education. We will understand the philosophies of Gandhi, Buddha, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Einstein, and can still have the life style of rich and famous, if we want to.
        Some advertisement told us to carry a bottle of water, and we did. We lost our confidence on us. We have lived without carrying water for million years and the mankind survived. Another ad said to go to the fitness center, and we did. Have you ever seen a fat man going in and coming out as a thin man? We lost our self-confidence. The MLE will change that philosophy.

        I will appreciate feedback: subhendu.das@excite.com

        • admin says:

          I agree that it is important to emphasize the moneyless aspect. Definitely. That’s why I started this blog, to discuss all aspects of RBE, or MLE, or whatever you want to call it. You don’t think resource management is necessary? You think everything will manage itself? Having a resource based moneyless economy doesn’t mean that ‘everything will flow smoothly’. Yes, hopefully people will have awakened more, but even if everyone are 100% aware and awake, we would still have to manage our resources.

          Both from the individual to the whole globe, we have to manage resources. If you are only a single person, you will have to manage yourself, your own mental resources. If you are a community, you will have to grow food and distribute it, which is management of resources. If you are a whole society, you have to utilize energy of some kind, which is management of resources. If you are the population of a planet, you will have to have a mindset that don’t overuse resources, thus manage them properly.

          So, what you’re saying is not valid in terms of us not having to manage resources. The good and proper management of resources comes from a proper mindset, yes, a pure and selfless mindset, but in any case we will manage resources. ‘…steal his or her wallet’, you say. But…we won’t need wallets if we don’t have money or credit cards. Think before writing. Use your brain. It’s a free resource given to you. Manage it wisely. 😉

          Apart from this, I agree that resource management will be a hell of a lot easier when we don’t have the profit hungry and greedy corporations to deal with anymore.

          Still, it is not the absence of money that will make us ‘pure and selfless’, it is the opposite way around. When we are pure and selfless, money won’t be needed. If the absence of money made people pure and selfless, well then all the homeless poor would have been Buddhas.

          And feedback is given here, on this blog, for everyone to see and discuss. That’s the point of a blog with comments…

        • hkgo78 says:

          Wouldn’t “marketless economy” or “non-market economy” be a better name than “moneyless economy”?

          • admin says:

            What about ‘moneylessism’? Or ‘marketlessism’? I think we should have another ‘-ism’. Just kidding. 😉

  36. linux says:

    Id like to clarify what kind of government body will work best with RBE.
    do we need congress? president? senator? mayor?,,, i think if they still exists, no one will run . hahahaha. but i think they will still be effective

  37. Mandamus says:

    Think about what humans did centuries ago, before mass transit and large scale migration was possible. Outside the cities, farms were the norm. People lived and worked on the same farm their entire lives. Think of it as a small scale RBE. They woke up, did their jobs, recreated and stuff got done. For over a thousand years it worked on that small scale. They didn’t get paid there was no money outside the cities. But their needs were taken care of. They had a roof over their head, and food in their bellies every day of their lives(famines and droughts notwithstanding). If you do what you do, and the other guy does what he does, and the job gets done what else is there? Keeping score? Being “better” than the other guy? I think there are enough “enlightened” (I hate that word, but it’ll do) people out there that could contribute to an RBE society.

  38. gtjhuang says:

    Admin,
    It is a nice analysis of RBE.
    When I discovered Jacque Fresco a few weeks ago, I began to put a lot of thoughts. It is sad that Fresco is not a household name even though he has been around for so long. It was not difficult for me to agree with Fresco on most of his thinking as I have had similar ideas for a while. But I have been holding my thoughts to myself as I feel that it is impossible for our species to make it happen. After knowing Fresco, I began talking about his ideas to my friends, colleagues and students. They all responded similarly — a perfect system, but humans are not evolved enough to fit into it.
    I think humans actually are evolved enough for the system, however, we know that we have all born and grown up in this existing system that our brain is already fixated to it and hard to change. The only way I can see it change, and relatively more quickly is to begin educating the next generation from the date they are born.
    Any influence from their parents will ruin this plan. To do so, all new born babies must be sent to a centralized center for their upbringing by qualified experts. Their parents can only go see them once a day until babies’ minds are instructed for the RBE living style. During the parents-baby meetings, the parents are instructed how to interact with their kids and certain gestures (verbal or body languages) that may imply our current monetary rewarding styles cannot be displayed to the kids.
    In fact, this centralized education system should exist not just for transiting ourselves to the RBE society, but for transiting to any higher levels of society or civilization.
    The reason is this. Anyone has the right to be a parent, but there has been no parenting courses required for becoming a parent, as if parenting is a no-knowledge-needed process, that we are in a totally primitive society like rats. But then, we know that to become suited to perform certain jobs, we need to go through years of education and training. Even to do a most mindless job requires some sort of training, but just not parenting, while nurturing children perhaps is the most difficult tasks of all.
    The root of all problems is human ourselves, and the problems got passed down generations to generations. From the dawn of human existence to this date, human emotions and behaviors have not changed much. The only thing that represents modernness is the progress of science and technologies. Most people have no idea what the purpose of life is. We all search for it and most of them search to the wrong direction. To me the purpose of life is simple; we want to live long and healthy. Anything prevents us from reaching this goal, we are not happy about it. Deluding ourselves that there is another life after death does not help us to reach the goal. To live long and healthy, we must continue to develop our technologies for the improvement of our health and quality of our lives.
    Once the correct goal is understood, then we know what we should do in our lives. RBE is a perfect setting to reach the goal. To get rid of ignorance, religious superstition, the seven deadly sins (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, all of which are re-enforced by the current monetary system), sociopaths, violence, inequality, social stratification, conflicts between countries, , etc, requires a new start by the centralized education system for the new born when everyone is calibrated and equalized at birth.
    This may sound even harder to achieve than the RBE as we fully exercise our animal instincts to the fullest when it comes to parenting. We cannot realize that the reason why we want to parent kids is just to pass down our genes (the selfish gene). And we want our kids think and behave just like us. More so, we want their companionship, because we are less likely to get along well with our colleagues or friends. To have a family is to have control. If we think carefully, all conflicts between nations begin from conflicts between households. Each household carries similar genes, so the conflict, if occurs, is easier to handle within the household than between the households. Of course, there is always exception.
    Communism has this idea of breaking the household structure so that everyone is free to deal with each other, not each family. Unfortunately, communism never happened in the right place and was doomed to fail and therefore carries a bad name – something that will not work. In fact, all the affluent countries now are more than ever ready for the communism to take place. Of course, Jacque claimed that RBE is not communism. True, it is different, but certain spirits are the same.
    To allow an idea society to happen such as RBE society, we must begin calibrating the minds of our next generation at birth.

  39. Chunger says:

    Great article! Really good info and it cleared a lot of questions I had.

    But I still have one that i couldn’t find anywhere.
    Where would the production area be? Where are the factorys that produce all the good we need? In none of Jacque Fresco’s designs I saw a production area. Would it be outside the city? or maybe there is a whole ‘city’ just for production… I don’t know, i hope you can answer my question.
    Thanks!

    • gtjhuang says:

      True. All the factories that turn raw materials into usable products have to exist. Perhaps in Jacque’s world, a lot of nuts and bolts will have to be simplified and standardized to reduce the complexity of the manufacturing. These factories can be located just periphery of each city. Or they should be in more remote areas.

    • Hey everyone!

      Here is an answer to your question Chunger.

      All of the information I’m providing is from Jacque Fresco’s “DESIGNING THE FUTURE” PDF Document available on thevenusproject.com website www.thevenusproject.com/images/stories/a-designingthefuturee-book.pdf

      “INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING SYSTEMS:
      These ships are floating automated plants, capable of processing raw materials into finished products while en route to their destinations. Some serve as industrial fish processing plants and canneries, while others are equipped with multi-cellular compartments capable of transporting a wide variety of products.”

      So to minimize the amount of space it takes to manufacture products, most of them would be created en route to their destination. But if you read through that PDF it goes quite in depth about all aspects of how a RBE would function!!

  40. Tom says:

    This is a fantastic idea.

    However, the replies for the initial post serve as proof that this just will not work. Not any time soon. People like to look smarter than others, they like to compete, sometimes, as is evident in the replies, just for the sake of it.

    • admin says:

      You’re right, it won’t work any time soon. But, it might work in the future, when all the ‘gunk’ gets out of the ‘mind of humanity’, and when enough people have grasped these points, which I do believe they will, eventually. There are comments that go in that direction also. 🙂

  41. Ingemar Nilsson says:

    A truley great article about RBE.
    Connects arguments from the heart with arguments from (for?) the brain.
    At least for the generation indoctrined in the monetary system (us) that is the maner of arguing that is both efficient and necessary.
    Will forward this link.

  42. Gnome says:

    This is the best article I have read about RBE, and I have read hundreds. This one I totally agree with, I have for long tried to find some of these answers. All my doubts are now gone and I feel awake. I’m sure this will work if enough people try to understand.

    I started to feel that something was very wrong with this society a few years after I started go to school. It was so much that didn’t make any sense. And all the meaningless jobs everywhere. I still today don’t want to do any meaningless jobs not even for money. They can give me any amount of money, I don’t give a shit about it. At my free time I work a lot for no profit though, i’ve been working for free for years. It’s hard to be satisfied to live in this society as it is today.

    I will do anything I can to change that, my goal for the rest of my life is to fight for a better world. This monetary based economy system does simply not fit intellectual beings such as humans. We have too much to give and can do so many more important things with our lives. We are worth so much more and can do so many greater things in this world than killing ourselves ect.. and not to mention all billions who dies due to hunger.

    Time for a change!

  43. admin says:

    In my view, humanity has only two choices:

    1. Continue to believe in money. We will then face more corruption, war, pollution, prostitution, instability, cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, waste, crime, famine, drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and scarcity then we’ve ever seen before, and only a few hyper rich benefitting.

    Or,

    2. Realize that money is not really needed in the world, and go towards more freedom, stability, openness, equality, abundance, joy, celebration, sharing, collaboration and more positive development than ever seen before on this planet, with EVERYONE benefitting.

  44. RyderSpearmann says:

    On the section of “technology”, which is where I am most expert, I have the strongest opinions and disagreements.

    Closing a box is *difficult*… and the technology to do it is EXPENSIVE.

    Well first, let’s look at closing a box. When closing a box, you need to know what is in it. Inside the box are items that the customer expects will match what they ordered, AND they are in good condition.

    For things like milk, this is easy, and in fact better to automate because the contents are identical, and sterility is important… thus all of those boxes ARE closed with automation. On the other hand, packaging a custom order is complex. This is what happens at the grocery store. We still have checkers and baggers. (though sometimes no checkers!) But we still have baggers. Why? Because there are huge amounts of variables when packing groceries… the quantity and variety of what is to be packed varies wildly. You have to consider packing order… crushable items on top. You have to consider total weight… high weight will cause the bag to fail. You have to consider breakability… glass against glass or metal won’t do, so you need to isolate these items from one another. Isolation… you can use some items to isolate fragile items, but not just any item. Soft white bread should not be used between cans and glass, it would be crushed, where a loaf of sour dough bread might do just fine, or better yet, pound of flour which can’t be crushed, even though it is soft. Next, cold items should be separated from items that should not become wet, and chemicals should generally not be packed with food. Types…. items of certain types, like bathroom supplies, are better packed apart from what goes in the pantry… multiples… repeated or similar items should be packed together as long as they are protected for unpacking convenience, and on and on and on…

    The permutations are endless… the shapes, sizes and weights fantastically different.

    Imagining an automated process to do this would be a staggering undertaking… let alone executing it. It is POSSIBLE, but not worth the effort.

    Now consider what HAS been done. Boxes now self assemble. They are no longer sealed with glue, twine or paper… tape guns make it easy. They are no longer hand labeled…

    The list goes on and on and on.

    The market continually finds the most efficient processes, and continues to refine and improve them… “automation” is often NOT a good choice.

    Next, on value based choices… Germany installed a very large wind power system… because their environmental values caused them to. They ended up tearing out the wind system, and replacing it a short while later, because the first system was SO INEFFICIENT when compared to more modern systems, that it was wasteful to NOT tear it down.

    What this illustrates is that decisions made OUTSIDE economic models, are likely to be faulty in some manner, in this case untimely. Economics said: “wait, this is not resource viable (not economically justifiable)” but environmentalism said “we have to go to wind power to save the planet”. By embarking on something that was not resource viable, Germany, in the end, did the most environmentally unfriendly thing… causing people to build then destroy, consuming earth’s resources in the process.

    Economic proof, in such a circumstance, is proof of *resource viability* in terms of efficiency.

    • admin says:

      I’d say all your arguing has nothing to do with ‘capitalism’ vs. ‘RBE’. I’d say that ‘capitalism’ or ‘RBE’ has nothing to do with the essence of what we are talking about. These are merely terms. What HAS something to do with what we are discussing here is HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT, not ‘capitalism’ or RBE’.

      It is human intelligence, knowledge and intent, or the lack of it, that causes good or bad constructions. You can have a successful or unsuccessful construction whether there’s capitalism or no capitalism, RBE or no RBE.

      You are mixing up logical premises, thus leading to wrong conclusions.

      And, you are still thinking within a narrow capitalistic framework when talking about this. And not only narrow ‘capitalistically’, but narrow in the sense that you obviously haven’t been outside of your country (USA, I presume?). Here in Europe (Norway and Sweden, where I live) we have no ‘baggers’. We are packing our own groceries, and have done so for years.

      You have to wiiiiden your mind, my friend, if you are ever to grasp the possibility of RBE. RBE means COOPERATION between humans. It means that we can do a lot of stuff OURSELVES, AND, it means that a lot of stuff can be automated.

      At least, you seem to understand that automation is increasing everywhere.

      So, then I ask you:

      When automation has replaced all humans in factories, and automation continues to replace humans everywhere, because that is what capitalism does, streamlining production, making it more and more efficient, then where does all the humans find jobs?

      Heard about ‘technological unemployment’?

      This is one of the many disadvantages with capitalism.

      I can’t understand how you can praise capitalism so much as you do. Sure, ‘capitalism’, or ‘free enterprise’, for sure have provided a lot of development on the planet. But it has also created more corruption, war, pollution, prostitution, instability, cyclical consumption, planned obsolescence, waste, crime, famine, drug abuse, unemployment, homelessness and scarcity than any other system on the planet. I’m not saying any of the other ‘-isms’ are any better, only that capitalism is not sustainable for neither the planet or humans in the long run.

      We CAN create a much much better planet when we get our ‘heads out of the sand’ and open our eyes and minds to what is really possible.

      • Jason says:

        Here in Canada I am working with a team of international extraordinary gentlemen/woman on RBE software to help intentional communities flourish. Communities that invest in themselves via a trust fund for the purpose of purchasing LAND which is cheap here in Canada to build housing infrastructure solar/wind power plants and semi automated Aqua/Hydroponic vertical farms, colleges, Jacuzzi/gazebo parks for recreation etc.
        Capital or commerce is generated through the communities’ productions art, software, small independent lab contracts and so on…
        Phase One of community development is a fully Athenian style Democratic contract whereby all decisions are voted on using computers to replace slaves which was how Athenian democracy operated not necessary with computers today.
        No single owner of community but joint ownership over assets purchased with the trust fund.
        Trust fund is funded by those wanting to invest in their future while we middle class still have purchasing power Moors law of physics relative to “technological unemployment” is not good.
        So weekly or monthly dues to get land and begin development are required like becoming an architect of the future you want to see!
        After a while five years maybe seven depending on your capital raised once you’re living there with the others whom began contributing same time. Further development will then be funded by those wanting into the community.
        After once there are no vacancies within your Tech-Commune all commerce is generated by facilities built through trust fund like a lab, software development studio, a grand theater, trans-manufacturing plant extra power beyond commune needs extra food whatever.
        These communes set stage or act as supply/support network for future demands for change once a community does well without extrinsic motivators
        the fear slogans capitalist slaves hold onto from the days their masters conditioned their parents to believe that poor people deserve what they get because their stupid the middle class should really stop asking for so much it’s our fault for economic collapse because of pensions and union wages etc…
        The audacity that the rich should like us all contribute to society via taxes!
        This nonsensical mantra works best on the ignorant naive and illiterate.
        The time for change is NOW we must stand together and BUILD our future the way we want it !
        No more should we allow a small group of extremely greedy, selfish, disconnected, antisocial personality, circus clown monical wearing inbreed parasitic homicidal plausibly genocidal maniacs
        Control resource distribution authority. This is all so crazy as people suffer the consequences of this monopoly game!

        • admin says:

          Wow, are you really doing that? I have thought about this myself, here in Sweden. Building new money free independent communities by buying land and building sustainable housing, etc.

          How do you solve inequality in investment? Say, if someone have 1. million, while another have only 100,000. How is this reflected in the ‘membership’?

          I really hope to be able to build one or more communities like this in Sweden one day. Or maybe in Spain…

  45. RyderSpearmann says:

    So, at this point, I want to formalize my proposal for a TVP test.

    Since TVP is untested, and people make mistakes, there is no reason to assume that TVP will work as envisioned, as unforeseen issues are always a possibility. Indeed, many say that it is doomed to fail.

    I have my doubts as well.

    The method to test is is rather simple.

    The argument:
    First, let us assume two planets, one with TVP/RBE, and the other is the earth as is. One must assume that this would show a difference in result.

    Let us then conceive of a one planet, when one continent is TVP/RBE, and another is Capitalist. Again, we should see a difference in result.

    What this says is that in the same planetary space, or even on the same world, TVP can co-exist with capitalism, and show favorable results.

    For this to make sense, we should assume that TVP structures are MORE efficient than capitalist structures, thus replacing any member of a capitalist structure with a TVP structure would be an improvement.

    I believe that a test of this idea is possible.

    I would identify two groups:

    1 – TVPC This is The Venus Progect Core group. They are to live as TVP would expect, and should be a collection of individuals with a keen knowledge and sense of TVP principles

    2 – TVPI This is The Venus Project Interface group. They insulate TVPC from the outside world. They are the “go-betweens” between capitalist society (which is rather efficient) with TVPC (which we assume is MORE efficient).

    The interactions are thus:

    The TVPC gives up material wealth… giving all of their liquid assets to TVPI. TVPC then makes their needs known to TVPI, and TVPI in turn delivers what is needed to TVPC.

    TVPI insulates TVPC by maintaining power, food, housing, fuel, etc. etc to the TVPC group.

    The TVPC group, thus insulated, will now automatically choose, freely, to begin to contribute materially to society… with so much efficiency that the outperform capitalism. The productive output of the core group SHOULD be so high that they have enough for themselves, AND enough to send to TVPI (perceived as their social contribution) that TVPI can take the results of that production and convert it, via capitalism, back into the material needs to be delivered to TVPC.

    TVPC, thus insulated, should be much more productive than any capitalist counterpart, and with TVPI trading this superior output, will easily be able to maintain this activity as long as is needed.

    • admin says:

      WHAT are you proposing here?

      I don’t know if you have noticed that this blog is not about The Venus Project, but about a Resource Based Economy, which is not one and the same. I don’t advocate everything TVP stands for.

      You say you will ‘insulate’ a TVP core group, that will ‘give up material wealth’. What do you mean by that? Do you think ‘money’ is ‘material wealth’?

      IF they were to live in a TVP city, they would have ALL the material wealth they’d probably ever want in terms of housing, transportation, technology, food, clothing, entertainment and more. If you know anything about TVP, you should know that the TVP cities are 100% self sufficient of energy and food, and produces no waste. Once a TVP city is built, there would be no need for anything more from ‘the outside’.

      This is only testing TVP, not RBE, though. RBE, to me, is something we have already. The Venus Project has grand visions of new cities in Jacque Fresco’s design, while RBE is about all of humanity.

      To me, a resource based economy is about HUMAN VALUES, as I have told you one time too many. And these HUMAN VALUES can we see already today in voluntarism, for instance. And this, of course, doesn’t need to be ‘insulated’ anywhere to be proven. It is already there. Working. Efficiently.

      No, no more bullshit. Educate yourself before you criticize and make suggestions from an uneducated standpoint.

      Look at videos at the TVP site to see what that is really all about. Read, really READ the above article, to see what RBE is really about, cause it doesn’t seem like you have done it.

  46. RyderSpearmann says:

    On the issue of motivations…

    My entire adult work life has been spent in, and managing, essentially a TVP/RBE proto environment, (like the kind that Dan Pink describes) and there are important things to understand about it… and the people in it:

    “Why would they do anything? Well, the former section should give the answer. People would seek meaningful and purposeful tasks.”

    This is an interesting notion, and clearly true *under a limited set of circumstances*.

    Dan Pink understands that you *first* have to pay people enough, for example, so that ‘money is off the table’… following that, what are the next levels of motivation, and clearly, finding meaning and purpose are big… BUT, this does not tend to happen in a vacuum. What the company does is provide FOCUS and DIRECTION. The company sets the goals and value propositions generally… and by this way, people see the framework within which they understand “meaning” and “purpose”.

    For example, when you work for Apple Inc. you look to advance technology as measured by existing technology… an employee won’t simply go off and try to invent a new spirituality, or way to make food fresher at the supermarket, invent new sources of energy or any of a million other things. Their work realm is focused.

    Finally, there is the basic expectation of productivity. This is key, and is provided by the organization.

    Minus expectations of productivity, and the direction and focus provided by the delineation of the realms of “work” and “life”… then guided by the organization’s overall goals (which any work will be measured by), people tend to simply flounder… they sit and watch tv all day, or surf the web like we are, looking for something meaningful as opposed to DOING something meaningful.

    This distinction is *critical*.

    The interesting thing is that capitalism has been SO SUCCESSFUL, that it has discovered, developed, and utilizes these human motivations, and we have things like wikipedia, google, and hewlett packard…

    In other words, capitalism has done so well that in significant part, it has “taken money off the table” and liberated people to be free to do “meaningful” things.

    This is a major success of capitalism, and it deserves full credit for it. It has created such abundance that people can now choose work based on the opportunity to be self directed and purposeful.

    This is also why unions are so outdated… they kill these opportunities. They reinforce “pay and benefits” motivations. Have you ever heard of a union contract which guarantees workers “FedEx” days, and the ability to do things how they want? No, instead unions seek to define in every possible way what work is or is not, work hours, procedures, pay scales, bonuses, benefits… all of the INHUMAN things about the workplace.

    This is why Hewlett Packard, for example, has never gone union in over 70 years… the employees don’t want it. It would suck.

    But in the end, the structures created because of the absolute need to SHOW truly productive results (measured by the yardsticks of profit and loss) are a requirement in order to focus people toward the productive meaning and purpose, as opposed to a more generic and non-productive purpose and meaning.

    “I contemplated the universe” would not be a good response to “how did you spend your day” at Google Inc.

    • admin says:

      RBE doesn’t mean no one can rule over their own possessions. Far from it. Even in RBE we’ll probably have blogs or the like, and our own ‘property’, like where we reside for the moment. Private space and personal property will always exist, just like today. It is just that we have to CHANGE OUR WOLE MINDSET from thinking that we ‘own’ anything to understanding that we really don’t. We can only ‘own’ it in the sense that we are responsible for it, take care of it, decide over it and express it. I don’t ‘own’ it in the sense that I will hoard it and sell it. And this blog is a blog I started and now possess, so I take the liberty to decide over it. I am not writing this blog for monetary reasons.

      Sure, you can call it ‘fluff’, or whatever, the comments that are there now. But these people at least have an open mind towards RBE, and are not totally brainwashed by some capitalist idealism.

      I wouldn’t have minded some sound criticism of RBE. But you are diving off into different, and yes, irrelevant, and actually meaningless directions at times and also taking small ‘out of context’ bits of what I’ve written and twists it around. This is nothing but meaningless arguing. You pick up on stuff that are completely beside the point.

      Like the ‘bagging’ thing, in this comment:

      Thanks for the kind response
      To this:
      “When automation has replaced all humans in factories, and automation continues to replace humans everywhere, because that is what capitalism does, streamlining production, making it more and more efficient, then where does all the humans find jobs?
      Heard about ‘technological unemployment’?”
      Yes, I know what a Luddite is…
      And no, this is not an issue.
      The full automation of tasks that can viably be automated is just fine, especially the ending of those tasks by people.
      This frees people to move “up” and solve more difficult problems… they are employed to solve higher level problems, so ALL progress depends on exactly this kind of evolution.
      So not only do I not see it as a problem, I see it as necessity.
      Also, you are mistaken with respect to “baggers”. You do indeed have baggers. They are you.
      The issue is not one of employment… the issue (at hand) was one of automation versus non automation. You, as bagger, is an example of non-automated just as much as if the checker was paid.
      And yes, here in the US, we also bag, depending on the check out options we choose. We can get full service, or we can scan/pay/bag ourselves, in the same market.

      Here, you are taking something totally beside the point and using a long comment to ‘discuss’ it. What has ‘bagging’ got to do with anything??? If you had managed to put it into a larger context that could have proven a point, but you don’t. I don’t want to discussing sillinesses like this, leading absolutely nowhere.
      And then it is the ‘full automation’ you talk about, where you say ‘especially ending of those tasks by people’. What does that even mean?
      And you say ‘technical unemployment’ is not an issue?? Everyone shall ‘move up’ to solve more ‘difficult’ problems? How many people will be needed to do that then, you think? Just as many as used to work at the factory?? So, you say that if we have 1000 workers at the factory that get’s replaced by machines, we now get 1000 new ‘scientists’, ‘researchers’ or ‘supervisors’?
      Sure, we can get a lot more people in ‘higher’ professions. But, how many do you think there is jobs for there? Especially within the monetary system. Not many.
      Why do you think there is so much unemployment an poverty in the world?? It’s not only because of technological unemployment, but it sure has it’s share in it. BILLIONS of people have been displaced in jobs since the industrial revolution began. Take a look at this article, to see what’s coming:
      www.businessinsider.com/9-jobs-that-are-already-being-replaced-by-robots-2011-3
      The article say’s that by 2013 there will be 1.2 million industrial robots working worldwide, and this number will increase fast. And that’s only robots, the most advanced part of technology. Many machines that are not called ‘robots’ will also replace humans on a large scale.

      The truth is that now most people only work BECAUSE OF the monetary system, and TO SERVE the monetary system. The jobs they have, have no relevance to anything else on the planet, except to money and the system itself. Every bank employee, insurance company employee, government tax employee, store clerk, employees in advertising, marketing and PR, financial and accountant employees, legal employees and lawyers, is only needed to serve the monetary system. They add absolutely nothing in terms of serving humans, the planet or the betterment of humanity. If we hadn’t had money and property, non of these would have been needed.
      We can add all the professions that deal with ‘diseases’, like the pharmaceutical industry, which couldn’t exist if all humans actually got healthy. And industries that deal with maintenance. If cars were manufactured to actually last, a whole profession would have been almost gone.

      The thing is that the whole monetary system is largely based on disease, breakdown and failure in people and machines. Without that, it cannot survive. The system CAN NOT bring health to all people and produce cars that last, because then there would be no jobs and no money to go around, and the whole system would collapse, which it is about to do anyway.
      And why do you think we have WARS?? To free poor countries from bad dictators? Or to ‘protect’ America? If you really think that, then you’re even more delusional than I thought. Wars are one of the most profitable things that can happen on this planet. The profiteers of war are supporting both sides, not caring who wins, the weapons are sold anyway. War is a product of the monetary system and the greed behind it.

      And in this comment you start discussing ‘Dan Pinks late arrival to the game’, as if this has anything to do with RBE vs. C, which it hasn’t.

      I’ve only gotten through the first part of this impressively long article… and went off to see the Dan Pink video…
      And I must say, that Dan, it seems to me, is late to the game… maybe not for some… but for me everything he said was obvious… almost old news.
      I don’t mean to devalue his talk… I know he is right… its just that for me, there are no surprises.
      I have long known and argued against government run schools, and rewarding teachers with more and more cash and benefits… for these exact same reasons. The performance of US schools TENDS to be inverse to the money spent on them. Schools with less money often get superior results.
      In my many years working, I have NEVER sought a specific salary, or asked for a raise. Not once… and I regularly get raises and promotions. The fact is, I don’t care about money very much. I know I like to trade for things I want, and money is the best way to do it, so I do need to be paid for what I do… which is my food, and my health, and my shelter, etc. But when I have managed people… I have NEVER incentivised them, and I have never worked in a business that has…
      When I receive something of value from an employer… I see it as their way of saying… “Hey, we’ve noticed the good you’ve done… here is our way of saying ‘thanks’”.
      So clearly, what motivates ME, and I believe everyone, is PERCEIVED VALUE. This includes money, as well as so many other things like variety in my work, challenge, flexibility in work hours, trust and respect etc.
      And apart from what Dan says… I think that MANY businesses know this. My guess is that he has not been a part of “the real world” all that much.
      BUT, what this means is that people are actually NOT motivated by money very much.
      This is bad news for RBE, because RBE is based on a premise that the behavior of people actually is strongly affected by money (in a negative way).
      My success as an employee and a manager has been due to being rather immune to money. Getting rid of it would not change me much, nor would I expect others.
      This seems to say that minus money, people will be largely the same as they are now.
      Men in the military are not motivated by money… everything they need is provided for them, like RBE would do, but this does not transform them very much in my experience (I served).
      The mistake we make, I think, about society and humanity… as creative individuals, we tend to want to believe that other people see and value things as we do… but my experience says… not true! The minority of people that would be attracted to TVP are actually rather different from the “sheep” out there, who are by nature, basically selfish, and motivated to “get ahead”.
      I am not saying this is good or bad. I am saying that it is.
      But back to mining ore… or any other unpleasantry.
      Even though Dan Pink understands that incentives are NOT good motivators for certain tasks, REMOVING incentives does will not suddenly cause people to wish to toil in otherwise unsatisfying tasks. All Mr. Pink is doing is saying that once a person has accepted a job in order to survive, their abilities are enhanced by means other than simple cash reward… or that cash rewards reduce performance. (which, BTW, I don’t think Mr. Pink knows WHY this happens).
      But what we do see, for people that have their needs externally met without a basis for receiving it, tend to crumble. Their self-esteem goes down (as they are not self sufficient), and generally they fail as human beings, engaging in self destructive behavior… and they are less grateful and humble when they receive what they did not earn.
      For those that enter and are raised in a world where their needs are always met, no matter what they do or don’t do, tend to fail to adopt healthy value systems… they simply expect to be fed, as a child does when mom makes breakfast each day. They don’t appreciate it, but they will complain if they are served something they don’t like.
      I still think that an RBE test community is a very good idea, and can be used to study the feasibility of RBE with actual persons.
      It’s too bad Disney died before EPCOT was built… he had grand ideas.
      I’ll finish this impressive article tomorrow

      Again, here you are rambling on with totally meaningless arguments. At least, I don’t understand them. Maybe it’s me who is stupid.

      When you say ‘what this means is that people are actually NOT motivated by money very much.
      This is bad news for RBE, because RBE is based on a premise that the behavior of people actually is strongly affected by money (in a negative way).’

      What on earth do you mean by that?

      I am trying to twist it into an understanding in my mind, but….no…I can’t. You mean that for RBE to exist, people have to be negatively affected by money, so that when there ISN’T any money, they’d simply….crumble…? No, I don’t understand. I’d say that this is GOOD news for RBE, that people are actually not motivated by money. How can this be bad for RBE? RBE is based on a moneyless society, and that people will be the same as they are now without money should be good in my eyes.

      I think you have it all backwards. I am not saying that we will get the moneyless RBE society FIRST, and then all people will transform as a result of that. No, it is the other way around. People will understand that, as you say, they are not motivated by money, and that money is not really needed in society, and THEN we might just as well abandon money!

      Then you continue to say that ‘REMOVING incentives will not suddenly cause people to wish to toil in otherwise unsatisfying tasks’. Who says anything about that?? I haven’t said this. I said that IF THERE ARE ANY PURPOSE IN A TASK, IF IT IS MEANINGFUL, AUTONOMOUS AND PEOPLE CAN MASTER IT AND BE DEVELOPED IN IT, THEY MIGHT DO IT. Again, you are drawing a wrong conclusion or messing up what I have said in the article.

      We are not talking about REMOVING all incentives in RBE. Why should we do that? We are just talking about money, which we both seem to agree on is not that big incentive anyway. ALL OTHER INCENTIVES WILL STILL BE THERE.

      There are much more confusing stuff you are letting out, man. Too much too even hope to go through. Anyway, here I’ve addressed some of it.

    • admin says:

      I think you are confusing ‘capitalism’ with ‘organization’. Who says there will be no FOCUS and DIRECTION in an organization in RBE???

      And Wikipedia has at least NOTHING to do with capitalism. I don’t know if you’ve noticed that it is non-profit. And, capitalism, at least the last time a checked, is ALL ABOUT PROFIT.

      Just to make things clear, I want to define ‘capitalism’.

      ‘Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for PROFIT.’ (Wikipedia). So, non-profit ORGANIZATIONS are not per definition, ‘capitalistic’.

      ORGANIZATIONS will of course exist in RBE. EVERYTHING we have today will exist in RBE, except MONEY and today’s notion of OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY. This doesn’t mean that we will not have our personal property, or that we can ‘own’ our motivation, intent, our creation, etc. We will only not misuse it to control others.

      And of course, all the mess and meaningless jobs we have today will also disappear in RBE.

      So, yes, there will be ORGANIZATION in RBE, very efficient one too. To organize is not the credit of capitalism, for sure. It is the credit of a part of human nature.

  47. RyderSpearmann says:

    Oh, and by the way, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard knew all of the things that Dan Pink was saying waaaaaay back in 1939, and from a garage in Palo Alto, created HP from nothing.

    The two men created a corporate culture with these rules:

    We have trust and respect for individuals.
    We focus on a high level of achievement and contribution.
    We conduct our business with uncompromising integrity.
    We achieve our common objectives through teamwork.
    We encourage flexibility and innovation.

    So like I said… even though Dan P. claims this is a new concept… it’s really rather old!

    This is a culture I know VERY well… personally, so I come to this discussion with a large amount of practical experience in the ideas you are taking about.

    • admin says:

      I am not discussing Dan Pink! Jesus man, you’re again taking something that was meant as something to prove a point, to BE the point. I don’t care about Dan Pink. And if it has been in use for years, fine! It’s not the point. The point is that people are not motivated by money.

  48. RyderSpearmann says:

    I’ve only gotten through the first part of this impressively long article… and went off to see the Dan Pink video…

    And I must say, that Dan, it seems to me, is late to the game… maybe not for some… but for me everything he said was obvious… almost old news.

    I don’t mean to devalue his talk… I know he is right… its just that for me, there are no surprises.

    I have long known and argued against government run schools, and rewarding teachers with more and more cash and benefits… for these exact same reasons. The performance of US schools TENDS to be inverse to the money spent on them. Schools with less money often get superior results.

    In my many years working, I have NEVER sought a specific salary, or asked for a raise. Not once… and I regularly get raises and promotions. The fact is, I don’t care about money very much. I know I like to trade for things I want, and money is the best way to do it, so I do need to be paid for what I do… which is my food, and my health, and my shelter, etc. But when I have managed people… I have NEVER incentivised them, and I have never worked in a business that has…

    When I receive something of value from an employer… I see it as their way of saying… “Hey, we’ve noticed the good you’ve done… here is our way of saying ‘thanks'”.

    So clearly, what motivates ME, and I believe everyone, is PERCEIVED VALUE. This includes money, as well as so many other things like variety in my work, challenge, flexibility in work hours, trust and respect etc.

    And apart from what Dan says… I think that MANY businesses know this. My guess is that he has not been a part of “the real world” all that much.

    BUT, what this means is that people are actually NOT motivated by money very much.

    This is bad news for RBE, because RBE is based on a premise that the behavior of people actually is strongly affected by money (in a negative way).

    My success as an employee and a manager has been due to being rather immune to money. Getting rid of it would not change me much, nor would I expect others.

    This seems to say that minus money, people will be largely the same as they are now.

    Men in the military are not motivated by money… everything they need is provided for them, like RBE would do, but this does not transform them very much in my experience (I served).

    The mistake we make, I think, about society and humanity… as creative individuals, we tend to want to believe that other people see and value things as we do… but my experience says… not true! The minority of people that would be attracted to TVP are actually rather different from the “sheep” out there, who are by nature, basically selfish, and motivated to “get ahead”.

    I am not saying this is good or bad. I am saying that it is.

    But back to mining ore… or any other unpleasantry.

    Even though Dan Pink understands that incentives are NOT good motivators for certain tasks, REMOVING incentives does will not suddenly cause people to wish to toil in otherwise unsatisfying tasks. All Mr. Pink is doing is saying that once a person has accepted a job in order to survive, their abilities are enhanced by means other than simple cash reward… or that cash rewards reduce performance. (which, BTW, I don’t think Mr. Pink knows WHY this happens).

    But what we do see, for people that have their needs externally met without a basis for receiving it, tend to crumble. Their self-esteem goes down (as they are not self sufficient), and generally they fail as human beings, engaging in self destructive behavior… and they are less grateful and humble when they receive what they did not earn.

    For those that enter and are raised in a world where their needs are always met, no matter what they do or don’t do, tend to fail to adopt healthy value systems… they simply expect to be fed, as a child does when mom makes breakfast each day. They don’t appreciate it, but they will complain if they are served something they don’t like.

    I still think that an RBE test community is a very good idea, and can be used to study the feasibility of RBE with actual persons.

    It’s too bad Disney died before EPCOT was built… he had grand ideas.

    I’ll finish this impressive article tomorrow 🙂

  49. RyderSpearmann says:

    Thanks for the kind response

    To this:

    “When automation has replaced all humans in factories, and automation continues to replace humans everywhere, because that is what capitalism does, streamlining production, making it more and more efficient, then where does all the humans find jobs?

    Heard about ‘technological unemployment’?”

    Yes, I know what a Luddite is…

    And no, this is not an issue.

    The full automation of tasks that can viably be automated is just fine, especially the ending of those tasks by people.

    This frees people to move “up” and solve more difficult problems… they are employed to solve higher level problems, so ALL progress depends on exactly this kind of evolution.

    So not only do I not see it as a problem, I see it as necessity.

    Also, you are mistaken with respect to “baggers”. You do indeed have baggers. They are you.

    The issue is not one of employment… the issue (at hand) was one of automation versus non automation. You, as bagger, is an example of non-automated just as much as if the checker was paid.

    And yes, here in the US, we also bag, depending on the check out options we choose. We can get full service, or we can scan/pay/bag ourselves, in the same market.

Top