Can people be motivated without an Economy?

[Michael Noire]

I've been thinking about different moral issues on the premise that people want to do things because they have something to gain. For instance, if you want to eat fish, you do something to make that happen. Perhaps you pay a restaurant to make it. Perhaps they pay a fisher to catch it. The cycle goes on and on, until you get the boat smith or fishing hook salesman who shows up at the same restaurant and buys dinner.

But morally speaking, if we some how eliminated necessity, how would the economy function? How would we exist if there were no economy? Is an economy based on gifts, inheritance, and generosity still an economy? Is an economy based on hobbyism still an economy, if the reason you have something you like is because the guy who made it enjoys making them - whatever they are, and he happened to have so many that you got one? What if the guy likes making things for people, and since you are people, you got one?

Is it possible to be self interested in your chairty efforts, and then expand that self interest outward to the point that all needs and wants are met by people who enjoy things like fishing and sewing and cooking and gardening, building, and carving, and so on?

3D printing is becoming more popular and filesharing has been going strong for about 16 years. Soon robots will produce more necessity goods than the effort of maintaining them will require on a global scale. Basically, everything can be free, or fairly close to free.

So how are people motivated once the principle of economic Tit for Tat is eliminated?

[catspook]

You might want to take a closer look at the marketplaces of Gaia and other gaming sites - they are pretty much exactly what you are describing (economies without need, where people only participate as a game/hobby). Now, there are differences in that these sites have regulations and limits in place that would not necessarily translate into real life, but I think they could give you a lot of insight into the matter.

[M E C H A N I C A R M]

Michael Noire

I've been thinking about different moral issues on the premise that people want to do things because they have something to gain. For instance, if you want to eat fish, you do something to make that happen. Perhaps you pay a restaurant to make it. Perhaps they pay a fisher to catch it. The cycle goes on and on, until you get the boat smith or fishing hook salesman who shows up at the same restaurant and buys dinner.

But morally speaking, if we some how eliminated necessity, how would the economy function? How would we exist if there were no economy? Is an economy based on gifts, inheritance, and generosity still an economy? Is an economy based on hobbyism still an economy, if the reason you have something you like is because the guy who made it enjoys making them - whatever they are, and he happened to have to many that you got one? What if the guy likes making things for people, and since you are people, you got one?

Is it possible to be self interested in your chairty efforts, and then expand that self interest outward to the point that all needs and wants are met by people who enjoy things like fishing and sewing and cooking and gardening, building, and carving, and so on?

3D printing is becoming more popular and filesharing has been going strong for about 16 years. Soon robots will produce more necessity goods than the effort of maintaining them will require on a global scale. Basically, everything can be free, or fairly close to free.

So how are people motivated once the principle of economic Tit for Tat is eliminated?

Interestingly, it is believed that historically many groups did not use currency for their economies but work on faith and social responsibility. As you can probably imagine though, this method has it's problems as it can be easily cheated and furthermore, can only really work in small tight-knit communities.

As a hypothetical question though I think a system like this is impossible. Even if people were trained to do their ideal jobs and would also be good at it, at the end of the day someone has to muck the cows. And why muck the cows if I can do whatever I like for a living.

Sadly, as much as I like your Eden where robots do most of the work load this doesn't lead to a better life for everyone. Just as now we have far more skilled workers than labourers, better production robotics and, perhaps more importantly AI, will mean that people will have to work harder and be more educated than ever before.

[Michael Noire]

i agree the displacement of jobs with the age of robots can create economic hardship for people who cannot maintain competitive experience and education in a world where every year more and more jobs are done by machines and artificial intelligence. But that kind of dystopia perhaps should instead be seen as an obvious speed bump in history, rather than a cliff from which all humanity falls forever.

It could be seen as a sign where the theory of sharing suddenly becomes a necessity rather than idealistic notion. Human beings above all else, need purpose.

Purpose is the shining star of all necessities. You have food, clothing, and shelter, but you also have medicine, entertainment, and the capacity to propagate the species either through longevity or procreation. Human beings also need education, although how we define that varies, it is true in all ages from primitive times up and through the present.

But purpose is the greatest of all these, and when you have become an spectator of time and existence, and have examined your otherwise unexamined life, you will look back and realize that purpose is quite important, in ways that make all other necessities seem like distractions.

Propagating the species for example, is merely a subset of the Purpose category. Life itself is propagated through core necessities like food and shelter, or through medicine, and for the mind, entertainment which prevents mental breakdown.

But that mental breakdown is ultimately going to be related to purpose.

Purpose therefore needs to be preserved in all human institutions including economy, or the lack thereof.

This is where the robot dystopia steps in. When you have a billion people and only have purpose for a limited number of them, because all other occupations are now performed by machines, then the remaining people or machines with artificial intelligence can start to talk about getting rid of those who lack purpose or usefulness. Feelings of worthlessness are one of the largest contributors to suicide, and in a world where you are exiled, hunted, or suicidal because you are deemed worthless,

I would consider that world Dystopian.

Therefore, it would suit humanity to alter the dynamic in which they interact. Robots of the 21st century will not operate with human beings in an 18th - 20th century economic model built around efficiency, profit, and mass production.

This is where Ayn Rand arguments suddenly force themselves into relevance. And on that note, I'll step down from the podium for a bit and let you - the reader, take it from there.

[Hope Legacy]

technically there will be an economy even without people, but if you're refering specifically to human interactions with goods, services, etc, then sure there will always be one and it will always function, whether or not those goods, services, etc are attributed to a price. if you look at things from the natural order of the world, you can get your answer as to how people would be motivated even after having the majority of necessity being taken care of:

humans have the tendency to:

be curious.
have passions.
seek knowledge.
want the world to be a better place.

what makes us human will also keep us motivated to be human and to strive for better tomarrows, to be curious, passionate creatures. even if the farce currently known as the economy becomes moot, people will always be people, and the fact that some still seek these things despite the inhumane treatment we give/recieve from each other means that we havent beaten the human out of ourselves yet... providing we survive 'till then, i think we'll be fine.

[Avgvsto]

I'd probably be still.

[azulmagia]

Motivated to do what, exactly?