The future of money

I like this question!
Two subjects: Robots and Humans
Object in question: Money (need thereof)
Currently, money is the reward for human work, rather the exchange for services/goods provided, which is then used to buy other goods and services.

What the question presupposes is that if there is no longer any "work" for humans to do, then how will humans acquire the goods and services they need? The question also presupposes that humans are the only ones that use "money". There has to be some exchange for the services/goods robots provide. Whatever that may be, it will constitute as money to them.

Let's look at a basic principle, "if you don't work, you don't eat". Okay, so if humans don't work, then they don't get money to buy food. So then, what happens? We go back to the barter system of old, like someone mentioned. Anything you "trade" for the acquisition of something else, that is legally allowed, becomes, essentially, "legal tender". So, in essence, we will always have "money" in some form or fashion, no matter what.

Robots are not sentient beings with the capability of controlling the world. An increase in technology has, and will continue to destroy the economic, social, and political structures we humans have built. But, because we are designed to do so, we will create a new system with new currency and new rules. Resources will be acquired by newly structured means. Life will go on, in some way.

I don't really think we are built to do so. The idea of ownership is not self-evident. It is not the only possible way to live. Technology may develop to the point where we are able to organize and distribute our resources by entirely other means.

Resources are finte in this world, so if we keep making 'new' systems which are really the same old systems of before, and keep over populating the only livable regions on this planet, and mass consume every resource on this planet, this planet will be looking at the problem of food shortages before humans even get together to build robotic servers for human society. Some estimate food shortages to happen in the next 50 years. Humans have to evolve quicker and think of better ways at exchanging resources (whether that be a monetry system or not)to benefit those of the future and not just for the short term.

Some say that food shortages could happen within the next 5-10 years. I aggree that WE need to actually acknowledge the problem and seek a suitable, logical solution. Part of it is being willing to do with a little less.

I'm also hoping for technology to provide the solution to logistcal problems. If people ever figure out 'teleportation', dependecy on oil would decrease. But new forms of renewable energy would still have to be sourced.

I agree. I also think humans may have to look for alternatives other than livestock for meat. I'm thinking insects... Probably not the greatest sounding food in the world but some countires do have dishes serving certain insects.

In a world where machine do all the labor needed to sustain life and thrive humans will find meaning on something. I go to the market every summer and see people selling paintings and handcrafts all the time. A machine can do that cheaper and better that any of those people but we still buy it from them. If machines can do all the labor we will do some labor and keep an economic system.

Lobesters and shrimp aren't really much different from insects, and a lot of people like lobster and shrimp.

That may be so, but to replace livestock with shrimp and lobster might mean we over fish the oceans of it. Insects on the other hand are abundunt and certain ones are a nuiscance. 2 birds with one stone...

To put the thread back on topic, my idea (however naive it may sound) is to replace money with a form of exchange. Early humans exchanged things to 'evolve' culturally. I say lets get back to the simple idea of exchange but instead of exchanging physical items, why not something far more spiritually evolved like respect or honour. Those who abuse the system wouldn't recieve goods in return and those with humility will be given the things they need. And it would seem obvious to me that those who are humble wouldn't be greedy. It still wouldn't be a perfect system, but in a future where work for humans is scarce, what would we value about each other? (Just fleshing out an idea that may not actually be workable, but gives us something to talk about)

I think money will always exist, because there will always be a need for a tool for exchange of goods and services. Economics requires it.

We can talk about total automation, but the reality is that people still must produce and maintain them. Many people love and enjoy work; even though some people do not put the value of income at the top of their desires or needs.

Even the production of machinery will need to be improved for efficiency and quality. There will never be a time when machines can take over what man can do.

Man loves challenge; they always seek new ways and methods to accomplish different tasks. Those who create the products that humans demand and use will always win in the wealth accumulation game.

I suspect there will be always be work for humans to do. But the percentage of tasks to be performed will drop SIGNIFICANTLY because of automation. This will require significant changes in all economic systems.

I don't see that in the far future; poor people and countries cannot afford to automate anything, because they don't have the means to purchase them.

Many people in this world still farm with oxens. Changes for them into automation isn't even plausible no matter how far into the future you wish to look. Many people to earn income produce handmade crafts; that's not going to change for centuries into the future. As the world population grows, resources to build more and more will have its limits.

That depends on how willing other industrialised countries are with bringing up the state of the thrid world. The notion of competition in capitalism needs to be revised or replaced if such action were to take place.

That is true. A good question might be what happened to their "means"..

Many parts of the world is so arid, there is not much they can do to produce food or products to sell. Much of the destruction of the environment has been perpetrated by man. This needs to be reversed before we can talk about helping poor countries.

There is a movement into farming sustainably and using the land wisely rather than creating dust bowls. But a lot has to do with climate. Humans intervene in all sorts of human matters all the time. So the question is why certain matters over the ones that seemingly matter? If an automated world were to exist, we got to ask ourselves who will be living in such a world?

C.I., you're right of course, not everything will be automated. I think I noted that only a significant amount will, and that amount will require major changes in economic systems.

I agree. But the destruction is ongoing. Poor countries are forced to grow certain products that the rich ones want to buy, even when the soil gets depleted from lack of rotation. Deforestation of the Himalayas causes floods in large parts of Asia, and multi-national corporations do what they can to maximize their profits, regardless of the poverty they create in already poor countries.
It's bad, and until we get a better system than capitalism it's not going to change, since capitalism perpetuates all these things and forces us to accelerate them to keep up.

But there is something that's worse, and that's the state of education in poor countries. Most countries have resources, and even if they were left alone by greedy western corporations and countries, they would mean little if there were no one in those countries who possessed the knowledge to make something of the raw materials.
I think that the access to natural resources is important for the development of a country, but education is even more important. Aids is a huge problem in Africa, and I am pretty sure that education about the disease would be a much more effective means to contain it than any technology.

I agree totally with your thesis; but there's always a but. Poor countries don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to understand much in the destruction of their environment in addition to the big companies who look at profit before the depletion and destruction of the environment. China is a good case in point; with their GDP growth, they have been destroying their environment and at least one-third of all their rivers are now polluted. To reverse that trend is going to cost much more than they have gained from their manufacturing plants.

I also believe that capitalism is necessary to motivate humans to continue with their R&D to improve lives and economies. It's only a matter of creating a modified laissez-faire economy to have controls against fraud, unequal benefits to society, and a government that is not influenced only by money.

What the majority of conservatives fails to understand is the destruction of our infrastructure and education with their meme of "no more taxes for the rich and corporations," while they support defense and war that's not paid for.

There are many developing countries that offer free education to their children, but what is happening is that those who earn a free professional degree immigrate to another country that pays more for their skills. Malta is a good case for this dynamics.

However, whatever the difficulties the US is having in our economy, my bottom line is that I continue to have faith in it, because that's the only hope we have left. With the return on US bonds at its lowest levels in many years, I transferred half my bond funds into equities last June 30. It seems thus far that I made the right decision. As of yesterday, our retirement funds are at almost break-even from 12/31/2010 - even after withdrawing more than the RMD last year.