Explaining money and work to children

[altus]

Thanks for your replies guys.

 

I'll admit I can't argue against people who are happy/content with the current system or against those who think trying to create alternatives is somehow fairytale/fluffy etc.

 

I don't understand this mindset but I am willing to accept it.

 

You misunderstand my point. A society without money would be nice but would have some very real practical problems - what do you do about people who want more than their fair share of resources for instance? You have made no attempt to address these issues - that's why I think your notion is fairytale/fluffy. Until you suggest some realistic solutions to these obvious problems, its difficult to think of your notion as anything other than a pleasant daydream.

[Hammerstein]

You misunderstand my point. A society without money would be nice but would have some very real practical problems - what do you do about people who want more than their fair share of resources for instance? You have made no attempt to address these issues - that's why I think your notion is fairytale/fluffy. Until you suggest some realistic solutions to these obvious problems, its difficult to think of your notion as anything other than a pleasant daydream.

 

I have done that. I have explained how to practically, slowly, bring about changes which at soem point down the line might bring about these kinds of changes or something like it.

 

What needs to be remembered that if these things are brought about organically and gradually then the culture will correspond with them. You won't get people with the same attitudes towards things as you do nowadays.

[altus]

I have done that. I have explained how to practically, slowly, bring about changes which at soem point down the line might bring about these kinds of changes or something like it.

 

What needs to be remembered that if these things are brought about organically and gradually then the culture will correspond with them. You won't get people with the same attitudes towards things as you do nowadays.

 

Some people are always going to be greedy though. How do you think we developed from hunter gatherer societies where we are now. How would such a society deal with such things.

[skinz]

I have done that. I have explained how to practically, slowly, bring about changes which at soem point down the line might bring about these kinds of changes or something like it.

 

What needs to be remembered that if these things are brought about organically and gradually then the culture will correspond with them. You won't get people with the same attitudes towards things as you do nowadays.

 

I think that's the problem with present day thinking..applying the "now" to the "future" without taking into consideration the slow evolutionary process that comes in between. The ideal doesn't come with a "now" answer. The evolutionary process by which we now exist cannot be eradicated through discussion over weeks..as you say, more like centuries.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2013 at 11:48 ----------

 

Some people are always going to be greedy though. How do you think we developed from hunter gatherer societies where we are now. How would such a society deal with such things.

 

In the same way society now deal with delinquents? And it wouldn't be "a society" it would be "society".

[Hammerstein]

Some people are always going to be greedy though.

Why is it, do you think, that some people are greedy?

 

If there is a reason for it then it can be addressed. Greedy/selfish/'evil' people don't come out of a vacuum in the vast majority of cases, they are often a product of their environment in one way or another. This is what I mean when I talk about the culture slowly changing.

 

People could also say that people are naturally selfish/evil/whatever but I would say that it is only when the environment brings about those kinds of desparate survival instincts and they are unresolved and applied more generally that those qualities come out in people. People naturally want to survive, but I don't think those things are brough about unless by the survival instinct.

 

Think back to studying plants in school. It would be terrible scientific practice if you were to study only the plants who are water deprived and are simply trying their best to survive and judge the nature of plants on that basis. Schoolchildren study also though plants that are thriving, and use both examples to work out the nature of plants. I think it's similar with humans. Saying that our only natural state is to be greedy and horrible is like saying that the only natural state of a plant is to be yellow and brittle.

 

I believe that in the right circumstances, people who want to carry out atrocious acts can be confined to people with serious brain problems - that is, the kinds of people who likely to be in therapy nowadays anwyay. The key to bringing this baout as far as I can see it though is by getting rid of poverty. That, obviously, is no mean feat but I think the first step is to get people in the developed countries to give a **** about tackling poverty, and not so much about what new TV show is going to be on tonight. And I think the first step in doing that is having an education system which nurtures peoples natural tendency to question things and explore rather than destroying it.

 

Edit: ...as well as talking about the issues with people, obviously.

[Eater Sundae]

At what age do you think we should explain the concepts of "money" and "work" to our children?

 

At what point should we explain to our children that money is actually debt and that the essence of debt is slavery?

 

At what point should we explain to our children that life, after state and private propaganda institutions have "educated" them, is essentially about wage slavery, followed by a brief period of ill health on subsistence pensions?

 

At what point do we explain to them that the work they will be forced to do will not benefit society or the natural environment, neither will it contribute to mental wellbeing, but only serves to enrich a cabal of elite "rulers" - their masters?

 

At what point do we explain to them that they have been born into slavery?

 

I think it is important to understand these things while they are still small enough and agile enough to still be able to climb up a chimney, otherwise an opportunity would have been wasted.

[altus]

Why is it, do you think, that some people are greedy?

 

If there is a reason for it then it can be addressed. Greedy/selfish/'evil' people don't come out of a vacuum in the vast majority of cases, they are often a product of their environment in one way or another. This is what I mean when I talk about the culture slowly changing.

 

People could also say that people are naturally selfish/evil/whatever but I would say that it is only when the environment brings about those kinds of desparate survival instincts and they are unresolved and applied more generally that those qualities come out in people. People naturally want to survive, but I don't think those things are brough about unless by the survival instinct.

 

Think back to studying plants in school. It would be terrible scientific practice if you were to study only the plants who are water deprived and are simply trying their best to survive and judge the nature of plants on that basis. Schoolchildren study also though plants that are thriving, and use both examples to work out the nature of plants. I think it's similar with humans. Saying that our only natural state is to be greedy and horrible is like saying that the only natural state of a plant is to be yellow and brittle.

Your comparison with plants undermines your point. Plants in a resource rich environment don't just grow a little bit. They consume as many resources as they can, growing as much as possible in the process and out competing other plants for those resources. Populations of animals are no different - they'll expand to consume as many resources as they can. It's not survival instincts in desperate circumstances that cause such behaviour, it's the default behaviour.

 

I believe that in the right circumstances, people who want to carry out atrocious acts can be confined to people with serious brain problems - that is, the kinds of people who likely to be in therapy nowadays anwyay. The key to bringing this baout as far as I can see it though is by getting rid of poverty. That, obviously, is no mean feat but I think the first step is to get people in the developed countries to give a **** about tackling poverty, and not so much about what new TV show is going to be on tonight. And I think the first step in doing that is having an education system which nurtures peoples natural tendency to question things and explore rather than destroying it.

 

Edit: ...as well as talking about the issues with people, obviously.

 

I disagree with your opinion that it's only a few who will be greedy. Whilst it might be possible to condition the majority of the population into adopting the mores that would support a money less society, there will be a sizeable minority who won't accept them. This will be a big problem as they will gain more resources, that will be noticed by others and breed discontent and before you know it we'll be back where we started.

[Hammerstein]

Your comparison with plants undermines your point. Plants in a resource rich environment don't just grow a little bit. They consume as many resources as they can, growing as much as possible in the process and out competing other plants for those resources. Populations of animals are no different - they'll expand to consume as many resources as they can. It's not survival instincts in desperate circumstances that cause such behaviour, it's the default behaviour.

 

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that and perhaps it does fall down at that point.

 

I'd say that we have a brain and intelligence and can make conscious decisions which changes things somewhat drastically, but yeah that needs adapting

 

 

 

I disagree with your opinion that it's only a few who will be greedy. Whilst it might be possible to condition the majority of the population into adopting the mores that would support a money less society, there will be a sizeable minority who won't accept them. This will be a big problem as they will gain more resources, that will be noticed by others and breed discontent and before you know it we'll be back where we started.

 

How do you know that would happen though? How do you know the greed and self-centredness isn't cultivated? There is really no guessing how much human culture might adapt if we give it long enough and the right environment.

 

I suppose it boils down to a nature/nurture argument about human nature. I know that it requires a bit of faith to hope we can potentially be decent to each other in the right circumstances but it's about all I have to go on

[altus]

How do you know that would happen though? How do you know the greed and self-centredness isn't cultivated? There is really no guessing how much human culture might adapt if we give it long enough and the right environment.

I think a lot, even most (but not all), of it is cultivated. Adverts and the media in general, encouraging people to be materialistic are probably the worst factor.

 

I suppose it boils down to a nature/nurture argument about human nature. I know that it requires a bit of faith to hope we can potentially be decent to each other in the right circumstances but it's about all I have to go on

 

I'm more pessimistic I'm afraid. Even if we could nurture most people to not be greedy, there'll still be some who's nature means it won't work and their greed will undermine much of the nurturing of others.

[Hammerstein]

Hang about, I've just thought: The point behind the analogy with the plants was to present the idea that it's not just the bad that is representative of human nature, but also the good things too