It's the change we need. Our technology has evolved significantly, now it's time for our society to follow.
Watch this:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912Then look here:http://www.thevenusproject.com/http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/Money is a burden which, through technology, we can get rid of.I urge you to get involved in this revolution.Edit: I figure I'd give this blog another run through the Recent Blogs. I'll put my pokemans back up after this gets pushed off the list, if I don't just write an entirely new entry.
The computers are going to enforce it. And while I see how it may cause greed, it won't cause jealousy. If you live with six kids, then you will be allotted the space for 7 individuals. You live with your wife, you'll be allotted space for 2 individuals.
But let's talk about greed. What would a single person want with more than their fair share of land? People nowadays want land for its resources, for money. Without money, there's not nearly as strong a desire to have more land than you need to live on.Why would we want more land? Possibly because we don't want to live like the Japanese/Chinese? They live literally ontop of each other. Huge population densities. Even so, if a couple decides to have eight children all of a sudden, where's all the extra land going to come from if the neighbors have a lot already? Or are the computers going to regulate it too? If a human can build it, a determined human can destroy it, especially as weapons are more effective than fortresses are. Ever seen a nuclear bomb shield that will survive a direct hit from a nuclear bomb? Besides the pyramids, I haven't either.
Plus I just read up on the guy. He didn't formally attend college and proposed this in the seventies. When we had 3 billion people. It might have been certainly plausible back then, but now it's not.One person to a reasonably sized lot is not huge density. And if a person up and decides to have 8 children all of a sudden, they have a handful of options. They could:
A. Have their house expanded into the "skylots" above their lotB. Have the children's lots located within a reasonable commuting distanceC. Try asking their neighbors to move their lots over (which would be relatively easy with automated robots) to accommodate lots for their children.orD. Relocate their own lot to a place where they can allocate their children's lots next to theirs.And while yes, a determined human could do this or that, it's a matter of do they want to. And weaponry, especially nuclear bombs, isn't going to be produced by automation.You do realize that Socialist and Communism consistently fail, don't you?
Also, with a single supplier comes a single ruler. If the government gives you what you need to live, it can also kill you easily. In a free country, the money you have can buy you any number of things, from food to luxuries to transport out of the country.This would be much closer to communism than socialism. A single power would rule through food supply.Greed is human. As well as not liking control (most people). If people were automatically allocated land from a computer, there would be cries that the computer was unfair, or that different people have different needs. Or there could even be a rush to have more kids to get more land, etc. Like said earlier, just because there is no money, doesn't mean there is no greed. As long as you can have more, there will be people that want more.
Living Spiral: If we're all taken care of, then life expectancy is going to be huge. The forecast of a great life and no financial burdens would let many couples have their children. These two combined will blast up the human population. There's a finite amount of space, and most of the space on earth is used to farm. Farming extensively rapes the nutrients from the soil. This would mean we would have to all become vegetarians in order to use space effectively.
Not to mention, computers would have to learn to ration in order to solve petty arguments, if you give them too much intellect, they will most probably rebel. However, give them too little and the human population will suffer due to poor decisions. A perfect line cannot be found either, as some crises require more rationing power than petty arguments.Might I recommend "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells? It's a great story of how in the future the upper class became extremely stupid creatures while the lower class became extremely powerful creatures. Us humans would be the upper class, machines the lower class.So, you want us back to stone age? No money = No civilization.