Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Would Higher Civilizations Have a Need For Money?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 19 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 50 Contributor
2,028 Posts
Points 51,580
limitgov posted on Wed, Dec 9 2009 12:30 PM

Lets say there are much more advanced civilizations observing us, could they have evolved so much that they wouldn't need money?

Perhaps if they had an almost unlimited supply of energy and goods.  Would they still need money?

Assuming things like telepathy, almost unlimited energy resources, would you need money, or could you truly live without the need of it, in conditions that maybe we don't fully understand or have never experienced?

  • | Post Points: 95

All Replies

Top 200 Contributor
Male
494 Posts
Points 6,980
Suggested by Spideynw

Assuming there was a super abundance of everything, then you'd have no need for money.  There would be no trade.  There would also be no property rights.  Scarcity of goods is the underlying principle for the need of money and property rights, and with these come civilization.

Is a world of super abundance of everything heaven or hell?  Based on the human condition, I'd be inclined to believe it would be much more like hell than heaven.  And could you even consider this a civilization, let alone an advanced civilization?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

limitgov:

Lets say there are much more advanced civilizations observing us, could they have evolved so much that they wouldn't need money?

Perhaps if they had an almost unlimited supply of energy and goods.  Would they still need money?

No.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,491 Posts
Points 43,390

No. We could use computerized barter system instead.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,538 Posts
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 1:31 PM
And how does a 'computerized' barter system solve the problem of coincidence of wants ?

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
2,491 Posts
Points 43,390

Why do you think I added computerized?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Juan:
And how does a 'computerized' barter system solve the problem of coincidence of wants ?

That is one question a supporter of the Venus Project will always avoid and never answer. Although, their response is that there would be a "new man," whose wants never coincide with others. 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
318 Posts
Points 4,560

If there is no scarcity of goods/services, then no, because money facilitates exchange, and exchange would be unnecessary with no scarcity.

Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Thomas Jefferson

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 9:33 PM

limitgov:
in conditions that maybe we don't fully understand or have never experienced

The answer is: Yes. The conditions we understand and experience now define our world in which energy and goods are what's scarce, therefore subjects to barter/trading. In ANY civilization (even one with abundant energy and goods) there will be things (concepts, thoughts, ideas, or whatever else we can't even imagine) that WILL be scarce thus valued by (and valuable to) the agents within it. Without an end (valued goal) there's no action, and without action there's no change. Without change, there's no life (civilization).

Finally, we have NOW abundance of EVERYTHING a cave-man would think a person could ever need or desire (heat, food, shelter), and yet we trade (and use money) like no one has ever used before. 

Z.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

Are we assuming that everyone will be able to make everything they want?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Thu, Dec 10 2009 9:58 PM

Laughing Man:

Are we assuming that everyone will be able to make everything they want?

Under that assumption, there simply would be no life (civilization). Scarcity (valued goal) is necessary for life (civilization) to exist. Agents there may  be able to make everything WE now thing one could possibly ever want, but we can't imagine the nature of every scarcity possible in ANY possible civilization.

Z.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,850 Posts
Points 85,810

z1235:
Under that assumption, there simply would be no life (civilization). Scarcity (valued goal) is necessary for life (civilization) to exist. Agents there may  be able to make everything WE now thing one could possibly ever want, but we can't imagine the nature of every scarcity possible in ANY possible civilization.

That makes no sense. According to your theory, scarcity necessitates life then the further we get from scarcity the more lifeless society becomes. Yet vice versa, the more scarcity we have, the more life we have. Clearly contradictory.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 7:34 AM

Laughing Man:

z1235:
Under that assumption, there simply would be no life (civilization). Scarcity (valued goal) is necessary for life (civilization) to exist. Agents there may  be able to make everything WE now thing one could possibly ever want, but we can't imagine the nature of every scarcity possible in ANY possible civilization.

That makes no sense. According to your theory, scarcity necessitates life then the further we get from scarcity the more lifeless society becomes. Yet vice versa, the more scarcity we have, the more life we have. Clearly contradictory.

(About the bolded part). It's the reverse, actually. Not only does life necessitate scarcity, but it may as well be definied by it. 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. You're arguing with the ludites: "There would eventually be no jobs if we keep building better machines!". The NATURE of scarcity keeps shifting as life (civilization) becomes more advanced. Yes, we have gone far from heat, food, and shelter being scarce over the last 10k years but go ahead and explain to a caveman how a NYC taxi driver sold his taxi LICENCE and bought a Windows Vista LICENCE with the proceeds. Now extrapolate this difference in the nature of scarcity centuries or light-years away from where we stand now. We have no idea about the nature of scarcity that would be driving agents to action in a future civilization -- but we know that it MUST exist if there's to be life (civilization) to begin with.

Z.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
7,105 Posts
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

do you acknowledge that artificial government created monopolies such as taxi licenses are a retarding influence on the progress of civilization....

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Fri, Dec 11 2009 8:46 AM

nirgrahamUK:

do you acknowledge that artificial government created monopolies such as taxi licenses are a retarding influence on the progress of civilization....

Loaded question, you must admit. A "yes" answer regarding taxi licences may not necessarily imply acknowledgment that all government monopolies are artificial or retardant to civilization's progress. Moreover, I have never suggested that I find the status-quo size and involvement of government acceptable or optimal in any way -- so I'm all the more puzzled by your question. But lest we digress hugely from the interesting OP question, let's replace taxi licence with an iPhone in my example above.

Z.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (20 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS