What if everyone were materially "rich"?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

I know I sometimes have asked questions similiar to this but I'd like peoples' sincere opinions. Say every single human being born into the world, no matter who they were or where from, whether it be through super technology, or whatnot, was rich, in the material sense, and had direct personal access to what amounts to millions or billions of dollars. How would this effect overall society, peoples' life choices, and technology development?

I know one thing for sure: Everyone on this forum would have ten of every Spyderco knife available :)

[OldHoosier62]

Unfortunately, the reality is that while the person may be born with X dollars you cannot regulate human behavior nor stupidity.

I have seen folks born into money,win lotteries/settlements, and yet within 5-7 years be broke and working for $10 an hour. Life isn't fair and a lot of folks are irresponsible. That's life.

People do dumb stuff.

[Blue Possum]

Even in that scenerio there would be person with the least amount, they would be poor compared to the others. And economics would escalate pricing for goods, so the poor would struggle. It is not possible to have a society without classes. Even when no money is involved, there are still classes: who built there home better, who had better land to grow food, who could sub stain better live stock. Equal classes can only be found in none material worlds.

[The Deacon]

Aside from that fact that, no matter how much they had, some folks would always want more, and some would think they were entitled to more, what incentive would be left for people to work? Especially at the more odious jobs? Who's going to grow the food? Harvest the food? Mine and otherwise collect and process the raw materials need to produce the material goods and keep the machinery that generates them running? Fight crime? Fight fires? Do you think there'd be no more war? If so, you don't understand human nature and seriously underestimate the power of religion to create and perpetuate hate. Do you think there'd be no more crime? If so, you If so, you don't understand human nature because both greed and pure evil would still exist.

And just for clarification, while I can't speak for anyone else here, even if I had Bill Gates' money, there wouldn't be a single Warrior or PM2 in my collection. :p

On the other hand, there are times I'd kill for some of whatever it is you smoke, drink, lick, inject, or otherwise ingest to provoke these cockamamie utopian wet dreams. :D

[kbuzbee]

Even in that scenerio there would be person with the least amount, they would be poor compared to the others. And economics would escalate pricing for goods, so the poor would struggle. It is not possible to have a society without classes. Even when no money is involved, there are still classes: who built there home better, who had better land to grow food, who could sub stain better live stock. Equal classes can only be found in none material worlds.

Not necesarily. This is theoretical of course, in the REAL world, of limited resources, this could never happen, so what you say is true, to that extent.

But if I'm understanding the original question correctly, it's the magic genie scenario. What if every person on the planet had a "magical genie" who could make anything for them at any time AND the planet could accomodate all this (eg - if every single person on the planet suddenly wished for a giant cruize ship of their very own, there wouldn't REALLY be enough ocean to hold them - but in this magical scenario they would have plenty of space )

SpyderEdgeForever, is that kinda what you are going for? Or are you just saying 'what if every single person was born with a billion dollars?'? THAT scenario is easy. Suddenly a loaf of bread is $5,000,0000 and the "wealth" would rapidly stratify as OH62 & BP say.

But if you're going for the "what if everyone could always have anything they want whenever they want it?" scenario, I think you need to set one parameter. Nothing you do, or wish for could harm anyone else. Otherwise, there are enough hate filled people on this planet that we would cease to exist in the first microsecond. Agenda driven terrorists would wish for nuclear weapons to go off in every place they hate and no one would be left.

-------------------

Edit - I just deleted 2 pages of my "vision" of what that could look like. In the final analysis, no matter how I did it, it's the end of humanity. Without the need to work for things (ie - for money to buy things) there are no jobs. Without jobs there are things that need done that won't be done. How do you punish someone for a crime without prisons? Who would even sit in judgement? Without saying that, in addition to "you can have anything you want" you add "and everyone becomes an enlightened person who wants only the best for all other humans on the planet" this scenario massively fails.

A possible "redeeming" scenario. People tend to be lazy. Perhaps they would become to lazy to commit a crime? It's possible, I suppose. But there are so many other issues to work through.

Interesting question, but I don't think, as a species, we're wired for "paradise". We'd find a way to screw it up. Civilization has evolved the way it has because, for the most part, it works.

Ken

[Evil D]

Well lets intellectualize this a bit. What exactly is "rich" as far as being materialistic? Remember that even money itself is a man made thing and actually holds absolutely no value to the life of humans other than the value WE give it. If you look at it from a literal perspective, which is worth more to your survival, 10lb of gold or 10lb of food? My point is, there are material things in this world that are absolutely vital to your health and survival, and then there are things that humanity has placed value upon that won't keep you alive when it counts.

Now, that said, you have first decide how people are rich based off of all that. If they're only rich in dollars, they may still be starving. If you had that 10lb of gold vs. 10lbs of food and you took both to a village in Ethiopia where people are dying of starvation, it may surprise you if the people there took the food over the gold (hard to say, if they understand the value of the gold and have a way to use that to buy even more food). Otherwise, if having the money can buy food, then this part is ruled out.

Which brings us to the next thought. If "money" or whatever determines wealth, and/or the ability to buy things in general, was so abundant that everyone had all they would ever need and could therefor buy anything they wanted, you would see a dramatic change in the cost of things. If everyone had billions of dollars, that $800 iPhone wouldn't make Apple any profit, since everyone would have all the money they ever needed, so the cost of things like electronics and cars wouldn't matter anymore. They could charge 100 billion dollars for that phone and it wouldn't matter, because monetary profit would be meaningless. This would ultimately transform the world's trading system and more or less eliminate the concept of money. What you would see is an increase in the value of commodities, namely food and water. You would see those iPhones costing "750lbs of meat" for example.

Basically, being born "rich" in the sense that we define it today would change, and the idea of "money" would be void. You wouldn't even give a second thought to the idea of not wanting for money to buy that iPhone, because it just wouldn't matter anymore. The farmers and people who control the essential commodities wouldn't be charging you "dollars" for their food anymore, because they themselves would already have all the money they could ever want, so they would be charging you something else....which would be whatever that imaginary society placed value upon, or probably physical labor.

In the end, that valuable thing that would cost more than anything, even food and water itself, would be land. All of this would shift the world's economy into a farming and agricultural one, and so having the land to grow crops and raise livestock would be the most valuable thing to possess.

[shunsui]

You might enjoy a series of books and stories by Michael Moorcock known as The Dancers at the End of Time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dancer ... nd_of_Time" target="_blank

[bdblue]

Our society is based on people doing work and getting rewarded for it. IOW we work because we MUST work in order to receive the things needed for life. If we did not have to work to get food or clothes or whatever, very few people would be interested in working and nobody would make the food or make to clothes or whatever.

Now if we had robots to do the work- make the food, make the clothes, make each other, repair each other, basically to do all of the work that needed to be done, and if there were plenty of resources to support this meaning plenty of raw materials and plenty of energy, maybe it would work.

I don't think it would be positive for people though.

I have watched "Star Trek", "The Next Generation" in particular, and with their replicators and what appears to be lots of energy, they seem to have less need for working even though on some occasions they do show humans elsewhere working. If they have a machine that will make anything you want, they don't need people to make these things, IOW they don't need people to work to make food if the machine will make it.

[gbelleh]

If everyone started out wealthy, I would guess that before long, 99% would somehow lose their wealth. But... assuming people could maintain their wealth, eventually, many would get bored, and desire to follow a calling within them. People would still want to work with their hands, or teach, or protect, or provide service in some way. Just look at all the "retired" people who continue to work, or volunteer even though they don't have to. Some people just love farming, working with machines, etc., and would do it for free. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, humans need self-actualization, and to use their talents and capabilities. I'd like to think that wouldn't change.

Of course some people would be gluttonous and hedonistic, offering nothing to society, but those people are around now too.

[kbuzbee]

According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, humans need self-actualization, and to use their talents and capabilities. I'd like to think that wouldn't change.

Of course some people would be gluttonous and hedonistic, offering nothing to society, but those people are around now too.

I wish I agreed with you. I would love for humanity to be come a more highly evolved species, each "working" because they love what they do and/or because it helps someone else.

Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of people tend to be lazy and selfish and the overall trend would be a fairly rapid de-evolution of society.

Ken

“Not everyone who drinks is a poet. Some of us drink because we're not poets.” - Arthur