Mind Mastery

If you had the choice;

To be stranded on a small deserted island by yourself for 1 month with no food and water or shelter, but millions of dollars

Or

To be stranded on a small deserted island by yourself for 1 month with food, water and shelter, but no money, what would you choose?

How about this choice;

To be stranded on a medium sized island with 100 other people for 1 year, but with no food and water or shelter, but billions of dollars each

Or

To be stranded on a medium sized island with 100 other people for 1 year, with food, water and shelter, but no money, what would you choose?

How about this choice;

To be stranded on a large island with 10,000 other people for the rest of your life, but with no food and water or shelter, but trillions of dollars each

Or

To be stranded on a large island with 10,000 other people for the rest of your life, with food, water and shelter, but no money, what would you choose?

Why is it that every single time you chose the option where you didn’t get any money, no matter how much money was being offered?

No matter how long you stayed, how big or small the island was or how many people there were?

Do you think it was because in these real world situations money had no practical value compared to real tangible resources?

You can easily survive without money, but you can't survive without things you functionally need to live.

Why would this concept of money not realistically having any value or being something useful change in any other setting?

Why would it matter the size of land you live on, the amount of people or how long you planned on living somewhere?

Wouldn't it seem more accurate to say that the available resources effect survivability and not the amount of money you have?

Arguing that humanity is surviving in a world using money is like arguing that a stage 4 terminal cancer patient using chemo therapy is ‘surviving’.

They may be alive for now, but unfortunately for them, it can only end one way.