Hello my name is Daniel Hanrahan and I created a barter facilitator application and do you think it is the future of commerce: https://github.com/Daniel-Hanrahan-Tools-and-Games/Barter_Facilitator Sincerely, Daniel Hanrahan
Hello my name is Daniel Hanrahan and I created a barter facilitator application and do you think it is the future of commerce: https://github.com/Daniel-Hanrahan-Tools-and-Games/Barter_Facilitator Sincerely, Daniel Hanrahan
Wow, it’s disheartening to see some people here think everything will always be based on trades/transactions and seem to not be able to imagine a sharing future. Sad.
The 1st thing is not exactly that sad and it opens up opportunities that everyone can enter and I can imagine a sharing future.
I think that can work well on the scale of a small village or something, where everyone knows each other. But I think it falls apart once you get above a certain number of people, maybe around 300.
After that I feel like inevitably enough people just stop caring if they are taking more than they should, or not contributing more than they should. And there are too many people for everyone to keep track of. Plus, it’s easier for leadership to be corrupted at this stage.
And it’s even more complicated if say like… you can go work in the capitalist village and make a ton of money and get treated lavishly, then retire to your home sharing commune where you can benefit from the system without having had to contribute to it. (for example, working in the US and then retiring in any country with public healthcare). I think part of the justification for the Berlin Wall was to prevent “brain drain”. So it seems plausible that “sharing societies” also kind of tend to be “you are not allowed to leave” societies, and that is often not good.
That being said, if we ever get unlimited cheap power (fusion? fission seems like it is “close” but falls short for other reasons), and some sort of Star Trek food replicator technology, or at least fully automated farms that only need the nearly free power, then maybe we’ll have such abundance that we will be able to give away essential supplies like food for free. Water is already somewhat free (public drinking fountains). If we can ever get some cheap and effective mass transit, then maybe we’ll have abundant housing too?
I think it isn’t necessary to grow beyond that size though. We can live in smaller communities without growing past a certain size. We don’t all have to live together, that’s what I think a lot of people miss.
Eh, why would there need to be capitalist villages if everybody had what they needed? I don’t buy that there couldn’t be luxury either, we have the ability and technology for that now in any scenario or economic system, I’m not a marxist or believe the idea that each according to their need etc but someone who sees the potential for maximum luxury , comfort, connection etc in the scenarios I envision. I would happily do the work if it meant living in a world without hierarchy, money, enforced trade or barter etc and I think many others would too.
No, it really doesn’t require some dream technology, just a mental shift, besides renewables are all that’s needed. We shouldn’t be relying on fission nor fusion, both are costly to build in myriad ways and one seems a huge pipe dream which we don’t need.
Edit: There already is abundant housing, it’s just in the hands of a few who have been convinced by the system that holding on to it and keeping others out of it is the best thing to do.
Completely agree about mass transit between cities, but honestly I just think we need walkable cities that are also accessible to wheelchairs etc. Something like the ideas the venus project came up with, or arcologies.
I think smaller communities would be great for many reasons. But I think scale is a key to our current level of productivity. And I think it’s required for building certain complicated technologies, like industrial farm equipment or computer chips. And without industrial farm equipment, farmers are less productive, so your village of 300 people might need to be mostly farmers. I think this is what was required in the past, but with the industrial revolution it opened up so people could specialize in other things.
There wouldn’t need to be capitalist villages, I think that some would inevitably form. Maybe many people are okay to just do a job and get rewarded the same as everyone else, but others might prefer something closer to the current system. And assuming no one is preventing them from existing, how do you prevent someone from deciding that they would be better off in a capitalist village where they might get paid more than in the sharing village?
Maybe you’re right that nuclear power is a red herring. Say we rely on solar panels or windmills. I think these are also complicated to build and require some rare materials. Who would volunteer to go to a remote copper mine if they could instead stay at home and work on something else for the same reward?
And maybe people are passionate about that sort of thing, so it’d be okay. But surely there are some jobs that are important but not as appealing. Who would clean the sewers or do something a bit dangerous like fix power lines or maybe washing windows? And I’d bet that many people might still go to 8+ years of medical school to become a doctor, but would people still do that for some less appealing careers?
So I feel like you need to offer some extra reward to incentivize people to do jobs that they wouldn’t want to do. Part of why I say this is because I’m counting down the days until I can have a vacation, and eventually retire. My job is “okay” but I’d rather work on fun hobby projects, but I don’t think anyone would ever pay me for them. One viable option is for me to work my normal job to make money to buy food, but then take time off to work on fun stuff that I enjoy, but no one wants to pay me for (or trade me for food).
So assuming you offer some reward to people for the less fun jobs, how do you prevent them leaving for capitalist villages which would presumably always reward them more? This is the key issue IMO. Unless getting rid of capitalism results in huge savings by not needing to advertise, compete, etc.
I mention dream technology because I feel like that can help with some of the scale issues. Maybe with unlimited power and 3D printers, a small village could produce everything they need, so you don’t need to worry about struggling just to produce everything you need for survival.
The technology already exists to create food or other things at scale though without much manual labour so I disagree with that assertion.
As for how to stop capitalist villages, well that’s primarily done through a mixture of education, cooperation and showing there’s no advantage to capitalism. Capitalism requires a state or some kind of force in order to enforce property rights, if I can go to that village and either take objects or ideas, capitalism loses since it cannot enforce its rights on me, nor its will once I go to a non capitalist village and thus it would have no power to keep its secrets, ideas or designs. It’s also done through education in that those who know more are less likely to be taken advantage of by others, especially if things like critical analysis etc are taught. Showing how well cooperation works instead of competition can be another protection against it. Also, a capitalist village will still have exploited workers. Why would they stay there when they could move somewhere where they’re not exploited?
So firstly, there isn’t necessarily a need to go to a copper mine, there’s copper in lots of things and we could set up recycling programs to extract it from things that wouldn’t be necessary under such a system, mass produced stuff, for example, things that broke and thus got thrown away etc etc. If there was a need to mine copper this could be done in part with technology, some kind of drones or other machines. Lastly, I’m sure there would be some people that wouldn’t mind doing labour if it meant less in the future, people thinking only short term and only about themselves is how this current mess of a world happened, after all.
Again, non appealing jobs can be done via technology and we can redesign systems so that labour would be at a minimum, a lot of automated/semi-automated recycling plants could be used, sewers could lead into recycling facilities and places for growing plants etc. So with those things manual labour could be massively reduced, or at least the parts people would ‘need’ incentives for (though I don’t think they necessarily would if it wasn’t constant and they thought long term and collectively).
You assume capitalism always offers more, it doesn’t necessarily and even if it does at the beginning over time it would merely exploit more and more people until they got fed up enough to leave, more people would do that currently if there was any place to go where they didn’t have to be exploited and could live a happy life with all they needed but there isn’t really anywhere like that currently.
I agree that we could very much use 3D printers etc and smaller power grids to create self-sustaining cities etc, using all kinds of renewable power since solar and wind aren’t the only types.
Hope this helps!
It exists now, but it is complicated to produce and maintain, let alone develop from scratch. I don’t think it can be done by a village of 300 people, even if they have access to all the information they could need and education and all that. Even if they had all the knowledge needed, the infrastructure required to produce it is large and expensive. Maybe a village could specialize in producing tractors, but I don’t think they could also make their own cell phones. And they only need so many tractors for themselves, so what would they do next? Either sell the additional tractors they build to another village, or change their production lines to make something else-- though they may need more tractors suddenly in the future.
A lot of what you’re saying relies on efficient recycling and automation. Once we have this, then sure maybe a sharing utopia would be possible. But I’m not convinced that we’re close to that. A lot of companies are trying to develop self driving cars, a lot of money stands to be made from that over paying truck drivers/taxis/etc. But it’s hard. Japan is investing a lot in automation because of their aging population causing future labour shortages. We’re making progress but it takes a lot of time, and it’s not clear if it will ever be completely possible. So currently it is basically “dream technology”.
Have you read about the history of the Soviet Union? The number of people fleeing from East to West was significant enough to build a wall to keep them in. Fleeing in the other direction was almost unheard of. I don’t think simply “giving up capitalism” is all that we need to create a better life, I think there still needs to be some way of deciding how to allocate resources that are used for different things. Historically it seems like the answer to that is either having a centralized government make the decisions, or having a capitalist free market do it. Both can be corrupted, make bad decisions, and result in shortages of food and other essentials. Both can cause some polarization of wealth. I don’t think there’s a third option of “everyone just be better”, since once you reach a certain point, it only takes a few people taking advantage of a system to ruin it. I would happily just “be better”, but I don’t have enough faith in others to do the same. I’d only have to observe a few people taking advantage before deciding that the system is doomed and I’d be better off in a different economic system.
I don’t see the point in discussing this any more. You seem utterly convinced that things cannot work any other way, and are comparing a statist history to a non statist future.
Hope that things get better for you. <3