Note: This blog post was made to continue a YouTube discussion without needing to work with the 500 character comment limit. If anyone reading this is unaware of this context, see comments on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CIeOKTs9aY
Marlen, firstly thank you for sharing your 'Paradise Cities are NOT the Solution: Zeitgeist Movement/ Venus Project Review' video. It was fairly long, but I did watch it all, so please bear with me whilst I take the time to respond fully. Before I start discussing your points, I had the impression you thought people who believe in a resource-based economy are not realistic/live in a fantasy land, I hope you will soon see that is not universally true.
There are three main topics I wish to address:
1. A sensible transition to a resource-based economy.
2. How equal money looks in practise.
3. The value of working with nature.
Point 1:
The only resource-based economy model I have heard you mention is the one described as the ideal end goal, with all world resources being free and managed for our optimum sustainable growth. However, if you wish to appreciate the resource-based economy model properly, it is important to understand the transition from where we are now to the end goal. There are many ways this transition could be done successfully, I will present you with a transition plan I see as sensible, feel free to disagree.
Firstly, the use of money is most likely to be part of the transition. To peacefully acquire resources whilst living in a monetary system, you either do so with money or through acts of charity made by resource holders. Since relying on charity alone is not going to bring guaranteed change, use of money to grow the resource-based economy is sensible. This is not a conflict of interest, you'll see why in a moment.
Secondly, you do not have to acquire all resources in the world to start a resource-based economy, managing the resources you have access to will still bring you success, and as your access to resources grows, so too does the potential for greater change. Planning with a top down approach is fine, but action happens at the ground level, you don't have to wait for mass consensus to start a plan, and nor is there need to delay the start of the resource-based economy.
Let's talk practically. What is the most fundamental human requirement that requires money? Acquiring food. So here's what can be done to start the resource-based economy. First, save money and buy farm land. Use technology to make planting, nurturing and harvesting food from this land semi-automatic, as well as planning how to rotate land use to maintain soil fertility. What do you do now? Give away this food for free.
Seeing as you won't have enough food for everyone who wants it at first, you have to use a strategy to manage fair distribution. My approach would be to have food distributed locally at the farm, on a first come-first served basis, with one major rule being that anyone who needed all the food they needed for the day would receive it but no one could go beyond what they could eat in one day.
So what happens next? For starters, you might encounter some resistance from local farmers who see your approach as a threat. This is where the second phase of the plan comes in: education and fitness. You offer free education to whomever in the local area wants it, allowing them to re-train for a new profession, as well as encouraging exercise/healthy lifestyle through classes, sport, etc...
The education and fitness step might seem like bizarre combination, but it should make sense once you know why. With the education side, it gives people options. If I'm taking away their livelihood (the farmers), the very least I can do is to give them new options to better their situation. It makes sense to offer this free education for non-farmers too, helps to build stronger relationships with everyone in the area. With regards to fitness, simply put there is no better way to improve mood than through being healthy, and I want people to feel positive about what I'm doing. Improving society hasn't got to be through dictating to people, help them feel better and they'll be more sympathetic.
So for arguments sake, let's say at this point I have a local success, how does this success spread, and what is my goal? My goal is to make sure everyone in a country, and hopefully the world, gets access to food absolutely free. To do this, simply put I'd need more land. The plan I've outlined can scale, but getting more land is the key. I could work to earn more money, add onto the land I've already got for free. Perhaps other people want to help out, so they buy land and donate it to the cause. Or perhaps existing landowners donate their some/all of their land. The point I'm trying to make is that money can be a tool to acquire this land, and there is no need for conflict with the resource-based economy ideals; this land will simply never be sold again, it belongs to the resource-based economy now. After food, other resources can be provided for free, but it makes sense to start small and focus on the basics first.
So, please don't think that transitioning to a resource-based economy requires throwing away the 'water pipe' that you made reference to in your video, money becomes more and more obsolete as the resources are acquired, but it is still useful whilst there is a need to peacefully grow the amount of resources available. I could go on, but what are your thoughts at this point?
Point 2:
You mention that the equal money system means that the basics of life are covered equally, whilst it's still possible to work to better your situation. There are a couple of ways you could sensibly do this, but perhaps there is one that is being overlooked. I believe it is being overlooked because it makes the idea of equal money seem less radical/world-changing, or doesn't have the emotional resonance you're looking for. What am I referring to? The welfare state.
When you break it down, all the equal money system is is an extension/reworking of the welfare state. For example, in my country we have access to free education, free healthcare, free money when unemployed, etc... When I say free, I mean free at the point of use, but regardless, no one goes without. With the equal money system, you're just extending this to the other basics of life, and making sure everyone in the world gets that quality of life. It's admirable, but it's not as comprehensive in scope at addressing the issues that face our world as the resource-based economy is (in my opinion), I'll elaborate further in a moment.
If the welfare state comparison didn't sit well with you, then consider the equal money systems nature as that of a two tier money system. Let's say for argument sake their were two currencies, one for the basics (currency 1), one for the luxuries (currency 2). What influences the value of currency 1? Resources/human population. This is the same as the resource-based economy. However, we also have to factor in currency 2, what happens when currency 2 is also competing for the same resources as currency 1? Oil is a good example, as it is used for many different purposes, including in basics like food production. It would be simple to say that currency 1 always has precedence over currency 2, but that misses the issue. Without controlling the access to the resource, you may be letting the unstable part of your economy undermine the stability of currency 1, as the resource diminishes the food reaching each person diminishes, pushing currency 1 prices up. If you choose to control how much oil is available to purchase in currency 2, then you're moving towards the ideas of a resource-based economy, but with money as an added abstraction.
When I said before that I believe the resource-based economy solves more problems than the equal money system, one of the biggest issues that separates the approaches in my opinion is how they deal with overconsumption. If you consume your resources faster than they are replenished then ultimately it doesn't matter how equally you share those resources as they're going to become less and less effective at promoting a good quality of life. Guards against overconsumption do not seem built into the equal money system from what I've seen so far, but they are at the absolute core of the resourced-based economy. If you think I'm mistaken, let me know.
Point 3:
Wanted to raise this point as I got the impression from your video that you believed technology disconnects us from what is important. What is it that is important? You mention becoming closer to nature, you also mention that you like giving back, like working.
If I was going to sum up what I heard you say, it would be that you value the connections you experience most of all (connection to nature, connection to people). It's worth pointing out a couple of ways in which a high-tech resource-based economy can help you achieve those connections.
The first way is with increased time. More time spent at peace with nature, more time spent with those around you, surely that can only help increase the connection you feel?
The second way is through increased sincerety. Work forces you to be in contact with others, you may spend good time with them but you're also there to get your job done. Of course you can take pride and joy in your work, but at the end of the day your connections are not born out of pure choice, but rather out of a mixture of choice and necessity, i.e. you choose to work, but you also need to work. I'd much rather spend time with people knowing that they could be doing anything they wanted, but chose to spend time with me. That is what I'm referring to with the term increased sincerety.
What I'm getting at is that you don't need work to feel connected.
I'll stop writing now. Would like to hear your thoughts. All the best.
