Conspiracy Theories: is there any truth in it?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Hyakushi

<_< >_> Cave man era all they did was survive but nowdays everything must have a value to people, they must always have a reason for something which just ends up as nothing in the end.

You don't think phehistoric man put value on things? A lot of times it was women. They invaded other tribes and took their women.

There is more than just surviving, there is procreating: a part of "human nature". To procreate you need women. The more women you have access to, the more you can procreate, therefore women were valuable.

[TheCrimson]

Originally Posted by MMM

You don't think phehistoric man put value on things? A lot of times it was women. They invaded other tribes and took their women.

There is more than just surviving, there is procreating: a part of "human nature". To procreate you need women. The more women you have access to, the more you can procreate, therefore women were valuable.

yes, but not materialistic things like we do now. its different.

[yuujirou]

Originally Posted by MMM

You don't think phehistoric man put value on things? A lot of times it was women. They invaded other tribes and took their women.

There is more than just surviving, there is procreating: a part of "human nature". To procreate you need women. The more women you have access to, the more you can procreate, therefore women were valuable.

i'll procreate w/ a yamaha r1
or even a hayabusa....
hell i'll even settle for honda cbr's
._.'''''

[MMM]

Originally Posted by TheCrimson

yes, but not materialistic things like we do now. its different.

How?

Prehistoric man didn't know WHY he wanted to procreate, he just knew he wanted to so bad he was willing to kill men in other tribes to take their women.

You don't think value was placed on things like shelter, food, fire, water, etc?

[yuujirou]

Originally Posted by MMM

How?

Prehistoric man didn't know WHY he wanted to procreate, he just knew he wanted to so bad he was willing to kill men in other tribes to take their women.

You don't think value was placed on things like shelter, food, fire, water, etc?

i think that the lass is talking more about the value placed on wants now as opposed to the needs of back then >.>'''

now a days, we actually confuse our wants with needs.

[TheCrimson]

Originally Posted by MMM

How?

Prehistoric man didn't know WHY he wanted to procreate, he just knew he wanted to so bad he was willing to kill men in other tribes to take their women.

You don't think value was placed on things like shelter, food, fire, water, etc?

of course. but there was no money involved.

if we had no money now and used the resources as best as we can and make it so everything's equal, it means we wont have to kill either like they did caveman times. and there would be no war for oil, no poverty, no gap between rich and poor. of course the rich wouldnt be happy. they'd be pissed cos they'd be equal with the rest of us. but the rest of us wont have to go hungry and feel like we're less than the rich.

idk. to me that makes sense.

and thank you yuujirou =) that's exactly what i mean

[MMM]

Originally Posted by TheCrimson

of course. but there was no money involved.

if we had no money now and used the resources as best as we can and make it so everything's equal, it means we wont have to kill either like they did caveman times. and there would be no war for oil, no poverty, no gap between rich and poor. of course the rich wouldnt be happy. they'd be pissed cos they'd be equal with the rest of us. but the rest of us wont have to go hungry and feel like we're less than the rich.

idk. to me that makes sense.

and thank you yuujirou =) that's exactly what i mean

You are personifying money as the source of evil. Money isn't evil. It is a tool for trade, and that's how it has always been. Instead of me giving you something you don't want for something I want, I can give you money: therefore you can buy something you want with money I give you for, say your fish.

Put it this way.

I have a car, but no fuel.

You have fuel, but no car. Instead you have a horse.

I have no horsefeed, so you have no reason to give me fuel to power my car.

So you are stuck with fuel and no horsefeed and I am stuck with a car and no fuel.

With money I can pay you for your fuel, you can then turn around and buy the horsefeed so you can ride to work and I can drive to work.

Why would you think eliminating money would make the rich poorer and the poor richer?

All it would mean is that precious commodities (like fuel and food) would turn into money.

Eliminating money wouldn't make everyone equal because you assume that money is what makes people unequal, but it is only one thing.

So either you are calling for a communist society, where the government distributes food and services equally among all people, or else you are calling for anarchy, where it is every man for himself, left to fend on his own.

Neither seems very attractive to me.

[TheCrimson]

Originally Posted by MMM

You are personifying money as the source of evil. Money isn't evil. It is a tool for trade, and that's how it has always been. Instead of me giving you something you don't want for something I want, I can give you money: therefore you can buy something you want with money I give you for, say your fish.

Put it this way.

I have a car, but no fuel.

You have fuel, but no car. Instead you have a horse.

I have no horsefeed, so you have no reason to give me fuel to power my car.

So you are stuck with fuel and no horsefeed and I am stuck with a car and no fuel.

With money I can pay you for your fuel, you can then turn around and buy the horsefeed so you can ride to work and I can drive to work.

Why would you think eliminating money would make the rich poorer and the poor richer?

All it would mean is that precious commodities (like fuel and food) would turn into money.

Eliminating money wouldn't make everyone equal because you assume that money is what makes people unequal, but it is only one thing.

So either you are calling for a communist society, where the government distributes food and services equally among all people, or else you are calling for anarchy, where it is every man for himself, left to fend on his own.

Neither seems very attractive to me.

i think Karl Marx had some of the right ideas. i think some ideas of communism are better than some of those in capitalism. but dont you think we're too far into the capitalist side of things now? instead of in the middle?
the only thing that made communism bad are some of the leaders being too power hungry i think

[MMM]

Originally Posted by TheCrimson

i think Karl Marx had some of the right ideas. i think some ideas of communism are better than some of those in capitalism. but dont you think we're too far into the capitalist side of things now? instead of in the middle?
the only thing that made communism bad are some of the leaders being too power hungry i think

But remember, you are not redistributing wealth, because there isn't any, but food and needed items.

So under your system, with no money, what if I want to leave my lights on all day? What if I have a 400 dollar electricity bill, when my neighbors is only 100?
What if I want to leave the water running all day? Is there any reason not to? Whose paying for it, right?

Capitalism has it's problems, but it is built for a long-term lifespan. History has shown that Communism and Marxism isn't built to last, despite some nice idea on paper.

[Excessum]

Hold 'em horses... someone has got the wrong idea here. Adendum was not bashing the nature/purpose of money itself, instead it was criticizing the whole social and economical model of our civilization and promoting an alternative for it, where there is no money as there would be no need for it, since people would have everything they need for their lives available for free and in sufficient quantities, which would be provided by technological and cultural progress... which currently is limited by the monetary system.
Yes, it does resemble the ideas of communism/marxism, but only partly and in my opinion is a valid model of social structure... at least to some extent.
Just imagine a world where you have everything you need for your life and don't need to move muscule to obtain it. You have free energy, provided by renewable/infinite resources (geothermal, wind, Sun... whatever), you don't have to worry about where to live since there are apartaments available in cities, which can be expanded whenever such need arises, or move to move to suburbs where you can have a house built by your own design... just the way you like it. Heck, you would not even have to call for a plumber, if your sewer system got blocked... due to nanobots/robotic cleaning mechanisms/shit recycling bacteria/whatever they come up with in the future. Streets are cleaned by robots, garbage is automatically recycled... and so on - al lthe dirty jobs are done by technology. You would only need to wipe your ass after releaving yourself.. although even that is questionable X)
The production is fully demand-controlled, since i doubt people would choose low-quality products over the ones that are better, you could choose the car that suits your needs the best, be it a sports car, family minivan, or a SUV and you would not need to go for several cars for going to the city/outside the city due to difference in fuel consumption, since hey... fuel is free just like everything else...
Now, of course the most unpredictable factor here is the human behavior in such an environment, since with everything attainable without any effort, the only thing man would fight for would be women... (haha).
Yeah, if we put a 'modern' man in such utopical world, i do not think he would be motivated to do much, now would he... he would just enjoy himself, eat all the free food, see the world with the help of free transportation, listen to all of the free music and do nothing else... but hey, with the enviroment the people change too, right?
*i cut a big part out here, since i am really tired/sleepy now and got straight to the point*
In the end, people mainly choose their professions for a reason which in most of the cases is beyond mere economical interest... because they like teaching, they become teachers; because they like science, they become scientists... and so on. Why couldn't this work? The spirit of competition, ones own desire for achievement and renown and social pressure (doubt that people would like slackers more than they like them now) would do a great job of providing a good motivation for people do something. And due to the technological advancement, as i hypothesized before, there would be no need for 'unwanted', unpopular professions such as janitors, plumbers and whatnot... leaving place for human creativity, spirit of competition and will to help others.

But then again, it might all be just a rambling of a man who is barely able to keep his eyes open to see the keys he is hitting on the keyboard... or maybe not?