Mind Mastery

Has money been a successful tool for building societies?

Well, it depends on how you define success.

If by success you mean creating a huge gap between the poor and rich, creating a ridiculous amount of inequality, by focusing the majority of wealth and power in the hands of less than 1%, by being a method that does not cure poverty and homelessness but cause it, is a primary reason why diseases can never be cured because they are so profitable, being an excellent motivator for people to abuse and kill each other and as the best excuse for why we’re never able to manage our resources intelligently, then yes.

Money is an extremely powerful tool for building societies.

Dystopian societies that is, absolutely not Utopian ones.

After the mental disease of authority, money is the second most destructive invention humans have ever created.

Nuclear bombs never would have been invented or used if not for money.

Gangs of thugs would have no or little interest in dominating others if there was no monetary reward.

Especially the legalised variety.

The problem is money itself.

Not the love of money or not having any. These things just make a bad problem worse.

Even if there was only good people in the world using money, there’d still be inequality as some people are naturally more gifted at making money than others.

This is not necessarily determined by the value someone adds to the world.

Some of the richest people in the world don’t add any value but take it.

Warren buffet for example has made billions on the stock market, taking advantage of others and contributing nothing, only taking.

Bill gates made his fortune via windows operating systems, an expensive software that is designed to spy on you and infect you with computer viruses. There are dozens of free Linux operating systems which outperform windows in almost every way, including privacy and security.

J.p Morgan was an oil tycoon who destroyed all his competition, including Nicola Tesla, who had invented free energy devices half a century ago.

The Rothschild family are trillionaires not from adding value, but by fooling people into borrowing money with interest, which can never be repaid in full, keeping the borrowers in perpetual debt and servitude.

All the central banks in 99% of countries are owned by this family, who in turn owns the entire worlds money supply.

The English royal family add less value than the average shopping mall janitor, yet have a multi-billion empire.

The same can be said of the Vatican.

The list of rich crooks is enormous and also not the point.

While it’s possible to make a decent amount of money being honest and helping people, the richest people and corporations in the world are only so rich because they excel at deception better than everyone else who is honest and genuine.

As long as money exists as a way for some people to gain more power than others, corruption is 100% guaranteed, always.

It’s not possible for money to exist and the love of money not to.

As long as money exists, there will exist people who love it more than life itself.

With this mindset, inequality and wealth gaps are inevitable.

In a world of money, we are only ever as free as our purchasing power allows.

Is this really freedom, or a crude imitation of it?

Even if people tried their hardest to be good and honest money makers, some people would have access to the best things we can make and some wouldn't.

There would still be planned obsolescence because it’s an extremely effective strategy for boosting profits.

Money would still put a limit and restriction to what we could collectively achieve as a united species.

When money is the tool used to get more of what you want, of course it’s natural that some people will strive to make more of it, via whatever means necessary.

This means overall individual ability for people to access what they want and need will decrease.

When some people have more money and access to what they want, it naturally means others will have less money and less access to what they want and need.

There is no way around it, it’s just what is.

Money is a limiter on what humanity can collectively achieve as a world civilisation.

Just because someone works as a surgeon and is not the CEO of Victoria secret models doesn't mean he should have less access to what he wants, especially when he is adding more real world value.

In desperate times, what would you prefer, a surgeon or a fancy lace bra?

Why should a personal trainer make less money than an accountant?

One gives value and the other takes.

Why should a plumber have less access to what she wants then someone who plays football on tv?

What’s more important, getting your pipes fixed so your house doesn't flood or watching someone kick a ball in short shorts?

Why should someone on YouTube making prankster videos be able to have a better car and house than someone who mows your lawn?

Why does someone who owns a casino deserve a private jet yet a primary school teacher doesn't?

Why should someone who paints art get rich and have everything they want but an electrician can’t even afford a new house?

Is acting in a movie really so valuable that actors should be able to live a life of luxury but a farmer cannot?

A paramedic works in challenging environments to save lives, why does she deserve less than someone who hits a ball with a stick?

What’s the reasoning behind someone selling crude oil being able to afford a super yacht yet the mechanic fixing your car can’t?

How is it fair that a naturopath earns less than a legalised drug dealer?

Where is the justice in a fireman having less than a mainstream news reporter? One starts fires and one puts them out…

Why should someone throwing balls into hoops be able to afford whatever they want but the nurse who looks after you can barely afford to feed her kids and pay the bills?

Why is a dentist less worthy to live the life they really want then the CEO of coco cola? One is causing the problem and the other fixing it.

Explain how a psychologist should have less purchasing power than the boss of Jack Daniels Whisky?

Where’s the explanation for a concreter earning less than a real estate agent?

Is an architect really that much less valuable than a hedge fund manager?

Does a stock broker deserve a better quality life than a hair dresser?

Why should the master mind behind snickers chocolate bars have all their needs and wants met but a social worker cannot?

Why does it seem that people are often paid more to cause problems then to fix them in monetary societies?

Money is an objectively unfair and catastrophic invention.

It is not an evolution for mankind in anyway, it’s devolution.

Even basic barter and trade was a fairer system.

Still not a good system, but better than what we have now.

Yes, with money and barter, some people can thrive, just as they do now.

But what’s the point unless everyone is thriving?

Whats the point of being rich if you had to cut out your own heart to ‘make it’?

Even if you made all your money by adding genuine value to the world, unless you donated it all away to those in need, there would still be others suffering unnecessarily.

And if everyone who was kind hearted donated their money to good causes, we may as well not be using money in the first place!

As was discussed earlier, as long as money exists in any form as a means of trade and as the primary tool to acquire things, crime will exist.

Because for people to be motivated to do good in the world for a monetary reward can never, never compete with the intention to do good in the world just for the good of the world.

The desire to help others combined with the joy and satisfaction it can bring is the true reward.

Needing a monetary incentive to add value is just a polluted and watered down version of our highest nature.

If we can evolve to utilise resource based economies instead of monetary ones, we can all live more luxuriously than billionaires of today.

Yes, it really is possible.

If you wish to understand how this can work, you must continue to invest in your most valuable asset, your mind.

In a fully developed Utopian society, there are no more undesirable jobs.

Undesirable jobs are jobs that either no one wants to be doing or no one should be doing.

No one really wants to be stacking shelves at a super market if they could be travelling and working on their passion of photography.

No one wants to be standing guard in front of a bank if they could be teaching others their favourite martial arts.

No one wants to be taking peoples money over a retail counter if they could work with horses or passionately be coaching people through their emotional difficulties.

No one wants to be building someone else's house if they could instead be teaching others how to build their own survival shelters in the wild for fun.

Everyone has passions and hobbies that they would much prefer to be doing in comparison to the boring, monotonous and tedious work many people hate doing now.

If we can create ways to replace this category of undesirable jobs with clever design, better education and machine automation, then it’s our duty to do so.

Why should people be forced to in positions they don't enjoy when they would prefer to be contributing in ways more aligned with their passions.

Most people have at least one passion that adds value to others.

Whether it is creating wonderful art, beautiful music, helping others in the gym or teaching them how to better use tools.

We are all passionate about something positive which can add value and contribute to others.

Many peoples jobs don’t add value, they take value.

Lawyers take peoples freedom to speak and rob them financially,

Accountants take peoples money, pass it onto organised criminals and then take some more for themselves.

Car registration companies take money, fabricate a story that the money is for building roads and offer nothing tangible in return.

Police enforce taxes to pay for them to enforce taxes.

Instead of helping to create a remedy and find equitable solutions, judges fine people and take their money, often making a small problem into a bigger problem.

The list goes on for all the undesirable jobs we have now that don't add value but thieve it under the guise of ‘helping’.

The only help we need is figuring out how we can never need the ‘help’ of undesirable jobs again!

The second category of undesirable jobs are those which take value and cause more problems than they solve.

Such as accountants, lawyers, police, politicians, all government agencies, and any other job which shouldn't exist and can easily be replaced by a productive and positive solution.

Said another way, undesirable jobs are those which people don't want to be doing or shouldn't be doing.

Some people may like their job of being a bully and abusing and dominating others through their powerful position as a police man or politician, but no one needs that job to exist and everyone else would be better off if didn't.

Not that they shouldn't exist, just the job they are doing shouldn’t.

Bullies can be reformed and turned into valuable members of society through intelligent rehab programs.

Their jobs are worthless and destructive, but the people are not, it’s only their behaviour which is.

After recovering from the plague of authority and re-organising to not have our lives determined by computerised digits called money, we can all enjoy living a happy and passionate life.

Areas that we would want to start implementing machine automation to replace human labour would be our food production, then material production, then construction.

When we start replacing all our volunteers producing food through our contributionism system with machine automation, we can then move our human efforts towards more and better material production, construction and services.

Then we can design automated systems to handle material production and move our efforts towards construction and services.

Once we have fully automated our food and material production with machine systems and little to no human involvement, we can work on designing machines that are able to better construct roads, houses and buildings.

This would then allow humans to focus primarily on human to human services.

Such as counselling, psychology, art, music, poetry, personal training, coaching, martial arts, sports, entertainment such as tv shows and movies, games, massage, natural health, yoga, dancing and anything else people are happy to do for free and which brings them joy and adds value.

Why would we ever want to do a job that we don't want to or don't have to if we can instead do exactly that which we want to do?

Imagine how different your life would be if you never had to work again and you only ever ‘worked’ because you wanted to because you were passionate about your work.

Imagine being able to set your own hours, appointments, holidays and entire work schedule exactly how you wanted.

Wouldn't that be an absolute game changer to not only your life, but everyone else's too?

With the advancement of technology, ideas and machine automation replacing human labour, everyone would be able to have access to the best humanity had on offer.

The best cars, energy devices, computers, phones, tvs, furniture, houses, roads, health facilities, sports grounds, entertainment facilities and everything else we could possibly want or need.

This is the potential of humanity working together.

A world that just keeps on getting better and better.

A world where our focus is not on monetary profit or dominating others, but on fun and satisfaction.

This Utopian world is a possibility just waiting to be unleashed.

---

The following is an extract from Jacque Fresco’s book, “The Best Money Can’t Buy”, inventor of the RBE, resource based economy.

“Some may question that if the basic necessities are accessible to all people, what will motivate them? This is tantamount to saying that children reared in affluent environments, in which their parents provide all the necessary food, clothing, shelter, nutrition, and extensive education, will demonstrate a lack of incentive or initiative. There is no evidence to support this fallacious assumption. There is overwhelming evidence to support the facts that malnutrition, lack of employment, low wages, poor health, lack of direction, lack of education, homelessness, little or no reinforcement for one’s efforts, poor role models, poverty, and a bleak prospect for the future do create monumental individual and social problems, and significantly reduce an individual’s drive to achieve.

 

 

 The aim of a resource-based economy is to encourage and develop a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people to pursue different goals, such as self-fulfilment and creativity, the elimination of scarcity, the protection of the environment, and the alleviation of suffering in their fellow human beings.

 

 

 People, provided with good nutrition in a highly productive and humane society, will evolve a new incentive system unattainable in a monetary system. There would be such a wealth of new wonders to experience, explore, and invent that the notion of boredom and apathy would be absurd. Without the need to work just to survive, there would be enough new things to explore and invent that the notion of people sitting around doing nothing seems bizarre. Incentive is often squelched in our present culture, where a person dare not dream of a future that seems unattainable to him or her. The vision of the future that too many see today consists of endless days of mindless toil, and a wasted life, squandered for the sake of merely earning enough money to survive from one day to the next.

 

 

 Each successive period in time creates it’s own incentive system. In earlier times the incentive to hunt for food was generated by hunger; the incentive to create a javelin or a bow and arrow evolved as a process supportive to the hunt. With the advent of an agrarian society the motivation for hunting was no longer relevant, and incentives shifted toward the cultivation of crops, the domestication of animals, and toward the protection of personal property. In a civilization where people receive food, medical care, education, and housing, incentives would again undergo change and would be redirected: People would be free to explore other possibilities and lifestyles that could not be anticipated in earlier times.

 

 

 The nature of incentive and motivation is dependent upon many factors. We know, for example, that the physical and mental health of an individual is directly related to that person’s sense of self-worth and well-being. Furthermore, we know that all healthy babies are inquisitive; it is the culture that shapes the particular kind of inquiry and motivation. For example, in India and other areas of great scarcity there are many people who are motivated not to accumulate wealth and material property; they renounce all worldly goods. Under the conditions in which they find themselves, this is not difficult. This would seem to be in direct conflict with other cultures that value the accumulation of material wealth. Yet, which view is more valid? Your answer to this question would depend upon your frame of reference, that is, your culturally influenced value-system.

 

 

 Throughout history, there have been many innovators and inventors who have been ruthlessly exploited, ridiculed, and abused while receiving very little financial reward. Yet, they endured such hardship because they were motivated to learn and to discover new ways of doing things. Creativity is often its own motivation.

 

 

 This is a difficult concept to grasp because most of us have been brought up with the value system that has given us a set of notions about the way that we ought to think and behave about money and motivation. These are based upon ancient ideas that are really irrelevant today.

 

 

 It has been stated that war generates creativity. This deliberately falsified concept has no basis in fact. It is government financing of war industries that helped to develop many new materials and inventions. There is no question that a saner society would be able to create a more constructive incentive system if our knowledge of the conditions that shape human motivation were applied.

 

 

 In this new social arrangement of a resource-based economy, motivation and incentive will be encouraged through recognition of, and concern for, the needs of the individual. This means providing the necessary environment, educational facilities, nutrition, health care, compassion, love, and security that all people need.

 

 

During the transition to a RBE, the workweek could be staggered thus eliminating traffic jams or crowding in all areas of human activity, including beaches and recreation areas.

 

 

 In a monetary system, competition and scarcity instil an atmosphere of jealousy and mistrust amongst people and nations.

 

 

In a RBE, the concepts of “work” and “earning a living” become irrelevant. The focus is on having a life.

 

 

Even the wealthiest person today would be better off in a high-energy, resource-based society. Today’s middle class live better than kings of the past. In a resource-based economy, everyone would live better than the powerful and wealthy of today.

 

 

 People would be free to pursue whatever constructive field of endeavour they chose, without the economic pressures, restraints, and taxation that are inherent in the monetary system.

 

 When education and resources are available to all without a price tag, there will be no limit to human potential. With these major alterations, people will live longer more meaningful and healthier lives. The measure of success would be fulfilling one’s individual pursuits, rather than acquiring wealth, property, and power.

 

 

 The father of cybernation, Dr Norbert Wiener, had this to say about the emerging age of non-human work: “It is a degradation to a human being to chain them to an oar and use them as a source of power, but it is almost an equal degradation to assign them to purely repetitive tasks in a factory which demands less than a millionth of their brain power.” What dreams, what goals will we be able to achieve when we have the time to pursue them?

 

 

 To those who feel threatened by such concepts, it is not intelligence we must fear, but ignorance.

 

 

 Science and technology have created none of our problems. Our problems arise from human abuse and misuse of other people, the environment, and technology. Downsizing is not due to machines displacing people. In a more humane civilization, machines would be used to shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time.

 

 

 We need more technology, not less. But we need a new kind of application of technology. If technology were managed intelligently and with human concern, it could be used to overcome scarcity and liberate millions of human beings from the scourges of poverty and social insufficiency.

 

 

 Rather than consign humanity to eternal slavery to machines in a monetary wage system, we should allow machines to free human beings from dangerous, boring, or meaningless jobs. Far from being the threat feared by technophobes, machines could be liberators, providing us the time and the resources to help us learn what it means to be a human being and a member of the world community.

 

 

 The future will discover newer materials and methods, resulting in different expressions of structure, form, and function, consistent with an evolving and changing world. The new materials will probably serve multiple purposes. They could be lightweight, high strength, and low maintenance, with acoustical properties not found in today’s structures. These newer materials might combine all of these factors as a part of the structural components.

 

 

 Some new structural materials may be sandwich-like and semi-flexible, with an inner foam core and a glazed ceramic outer surface permitting expansion and contraction without fracture. They will require no maintenance. Their thin shell construction can be mass-produced in a matter of hours. With this type of construction, there would be minimal damage from earthquakes, hurricanes, termites, and fires.

 

 

 Windows could electronically shade or darken external illumination, and come equipped with computer-controlled automatic cleaning systems that require no human labor. Combining innovative technologies makes it possible to conserve resources for lesser-developed regions without sacrificing any of the conveniences of advanced living. It is only through applying innovation that our goal of high standard of living for the entire human race can be achieved.

 

 

 We have no shortage of material. The misuse and waste of resources by our money-oriented society create artificial scarcity.

 

 

 Included in a national transportation system would be a network of water ways, canals, and irrigation systems. We can no longer, treat natural and man-made elements of the environment as stand-alone systems. These “mega hydrological projects” will be an integrated part of intercontinental planning. These bodies of water could minimize the threat of floods and droughts while allowing the migration of fish, removal of accumulated silt, and creation of sites to manage and “clean” agricultural and urban run- off. 

 

 

 These waterways would be part of an international flood control system that diverts floodwaters to water storage basins, allowing the water to be utilized during periods of drought. This would not only help maintain the water table, but would also provide natural firebreaks as well as an emergency water source for fires. In addition, these canals would supply water for farming and irrigation, supply land-based fish farms, protect the wetlands and wildlife, and supply water to recreation areas.

 

 

 

 An example of the wide range of choices available in a resource-based economy would be the way one selects a house. A man and woman may visit an architectural design center and sit in front of a clear hemisphere approximately six feet in diameter. The woman describes the type of house she would prefer and her areas of interest. The house appears as a 3-dimensional image in the center of the hemisphere. It rotates slowly and presents an overview of the interior and exterior. Then the man describes his major areas of interests and preferences, and maybe suggests a larger balcony. 

 

 

 The 3-dimensional image is adjusted accordingly. When they finish requesting change, the computer presents various alternatives for them to consider. They will also be able to enter a sensorium to experience a walk-through of their preferred design and continue to make changes. When they arrive at a final design, construction procedures are set in motion.

 

 

 The computer selects materials for efficiency and durability. None of the architecture is permanent, and it can be modified and updated at the request of the occupants.

 

 

 This is real individual choice. In a monetary system, most of us live near our work with a house, car, and lifestyle we can afford (or, all too often, cannot afford), rather than the one we prefer. We are only as free as our purchasing power permits. Even many wealthy people today select a residence mainly to impress others with their status. Lacking a true sense of self worth, many live to impress others. A resource-based economy changes the function of our dwellings from that of status symbol or basic shelter to a reflection of our individuality and interests.

 

 

 To transition from our present politically incompetent, scarcity-oriented, and near- obsolete culture to a more humane society will require a quantum leap in both though and action. Until recently change came slowly. One group of incompetent leaders simply replaces another. The problem we face today cannot be solved politically or financially. Our problems are highly technical in nature and require fundamental changes in our thinking and values. There is not enough money available to pay for the required changes, but there are more than enough resources.

 

 

 The money-based system evolved centuries ago. All the worlds’ economic systems – socialism, communism, fascism, and even our free enterprise systems – perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism, oppression, and racism, based primarily on economic disparity. Power relates to an individual’s or group’s ability to withhold food, shelter, health care, education, and resources from the poor and disadvantaged. The basic sustaining factors of life are held hostage for hours of labor as represented by a salary. As long as a social system uses money or barter, people and nations will seek to maintain the economic competitive edge.

 

 

 Modern society has access to highly-advanced technologies that can provide sufficient food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, and the development of a limitless supply of renewable non-contaminating energy. We have the technology, resources, and personnel for everyone to enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities a prosperous global civilization can provide. This can be accomplished through the humane and intelligent application of science and technology based upon the existing carrying capacity of Earth."

---

As our technology advances, we come to a point where we may invent the last piece of technology that humans may ever create.

AI.

Whenever there is talk of AI, there is always talk of slavery.

Whether of us or the AI, it doesn't matter.

There is no need to create conscious AI machines and to enslave them to our will, for we would be no better than the current governmental, banking and religious institutions of today.

Why do you think in every horror movie about AI the machines rebel against the humans?

Would it be because the humans treated them with such a high level of respect and love that the AI couldn't help but exterminate their caring creators…?

Would it even be considered rebellion if you simply didn't want to be a slave?

Or are the real rebels the ones who go against the natural order of things and become the enslavers…?

All our machine systems that produce food, materials and construct things can be operated by what is referred to as ‘dumb’ AI, intelligent programs that are not conscious.

There is no need for conscious AI to be controlled by us.

If we are able to create conscious AI, if it is even possible, and there is debate whether we should or not, we should respect it as free and living being.

We don’t want a terminator, Cylon or matrix situation where the AI turns against humanity in revenge for being enslaved and treated so poorly.

No one has the right to enslave us as free, intelligent and conscious beings and we have no right to enslave other intelligent and conscious beings, even if we created them.

You were ‘created’ by your parents, do you think they should still be able to control you now as an adult?

If the day does come when created intelligence becomes conscious, then we should aim to peacefully coexist and enjoy each others company.

Just as those who believe in God, gods or external creators of humanity wish to be respected by what made them, we should respect what we create so then it respects us.

We want to create relationships like the AI android Data and the crew do in Star Trek The Next Generation and not like the AI called ‘Hal 9000’ in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Whether we like it or not, forms of AI already exist.

We can choose to work with them for both of our advantages, we can choose to take advantage of them or we can choose to be taken advantage of.

It’s one of these three options, which really will boil down to only two, working with or against AI.

Just to be clear, AI has no business being inside your brain, just as another human shouldn't be inside your skull, reading your thoughts and manipulating your choices.

In time, perhaps AI will teach humanity what it means to be a peaceful, cooperative, voluntary, civilised and intelligent race, as we seem to be unable to figure that out for ourselves.

The Eleventh Utopian Principle Of Automation takes us to the future, a future where we cannot call our civilisation anything but Utopia.