Piracy is not the problem. Money is.

[SoraK05]

I've skimmed though this thread.
Money helps, and has helped. Many cultures around devised a way to reward people for their efforts, with money, before they met after traveling, sailing and technology.

Money is good. What people do with it can be good or bad.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Lol, just realized the thread title suggests anyone without money is problem-free.

Before you start arguing, I know that's not your point. That's just what the subject looks like.

 

[gusmento01]

Back in 1993, I had a Snes(as a matter of fact I still have it) and 25 cartridges, out of 25 games only 2 carts were original made by Nintendo(Super Mario World and Star Fox), everything else was pirate, you know why? Money, I remember my Dad paid 15 dollars for a pirate Super Metroid and a original was 70 dollars, there was no difference between a Pirate and a Nintendo cart, but I really wanted the original with the box and manual but pay between 70 to 75 dollars back in 1993 and 1994 was ridiculous.

 

[LDAsh]

LDAsh, you need to read the opening post to understand what's being discussed.

I read your post thoroughly but I'm talking about this world specifically where developing a full and substantial game and getting it into the hands of players takes a little something known as "money", and if this is not the case then feel free to enlighten me further. I'd be looking for tangible examples and not pages and pages of fantastical theories.

 

[Foxi4]

Foxi, you don't make a logical argument by asserting things and then not sourcing them. Yes, history does need to be sourced, especially when you're making a point. I sourced mine and continue to source it, I ask for the same courtesy.

Au contraire - my argument is very logical from a mathematical point of view.

You claim that money is the direct cause of U.S.S.R's downfall and I claim that it is not on the basis of money being used world-wide and not causing the downfall of other countries or unions. By definition, the use of currency is not the cause of U.S.S.R's downfall - if it was, all countries which used currency at the time would also collapse and they didn't - how is that not logical? You insist on programming-like accuracy and I give it to you - if you put those terms into variables, you have the variable "Money" and the variable "System" - in the case of the West, the result is 0 - its downfall is "false", in the case of the U.S.S.R, the downfall is "true" - in this scenario, the only possible values are "0" for the Money and "1" for the Communist/Socialist system:

#define Money 0
#define System_1 0
#define System_2 1
 
bool West = Money + System_1; //= false, 0 + 0 = 0
bool East = Money + System_2; //= true, 0 + 1 = 1

This is literally the only scenario where the outcome of the calculation equals the real-life outcome, ergo it must be correct. I'm only showing this because of your apparent fondness of programming - how can you wish to defy the very binary logic you glorify so much?

As for the historical sources necessary for me to validate my point, I'm pretty sure of what I'm talking about because I live in a country which used to be under Soviet domain - I experience the direct, long-term results of Communism and Socialism on a daily basis - it was a terrible system of distribution that kept everyone without "connections" in queues which stretched for days. More often than not, goods didn't even reach store shelves and the only two things you could count on buying were matches and vinegar, everything else required government stamps or permits - a new kind of grey market emerged where people traded the stamps or permits among each other just like currency because currency meant nothing if you couldn't buy anything for it. Trust me, I know. To this day we pay the price - many areas of our economy and infrastructure are a decade behind the times although we're doing our best to catch up. Communism did one thing and one thing only - pillaged our resources for the benefit of the Kremlin. It claimed that everyone was equal, but that was not true - there is a saying from those times here, it goes "there are the equal and the MORE equal", which roughly translates that you were only equal if you had working class roots and were a member of the Party, preferably a politician or a government official, alternatively a member of the Militia - if you weren't, tough luck, you're not getting a whole lot of them stamps. It did not work, it caused civil unrest, the distribution was uneven, it killed the industry and that's why the system fell.

 

[Wolvenreign]

Edit 1: Post may be of poor quality due to lack of sleep. Re-examination due for tomorrow.

Au contraire - my argument is very logical from a mathematical point of view.

You claim that money is the direct cause of U.S.S.R's downfall and I claim that it is not on the basis of money being used world-wide and not causing the downfall of other countries or unions. By definition, the use of currency is not the cause of U.S.S.R's downfall - if it was, all countries which used currency at the time would also collapse and they didn't - how is that not logical? You insist on programming-like accuracy and I give it to you - if you put those terms into variables, you have the variable "Money" and the variable "System" - in the case of the West, the result is 0 - its downfall is "false", in the case of the U.S.S.R, the downfall is "true" - in this scenario, the only possible values are "0" for the Money and "1" for the Communist/Socialist system:

#define Money 0
#define System_1 0
#define System_2 1
 
bool West = Money + System_1; //= false, 0 + 0 = 0
bool East = Money + System_2; //= true, 0 + 1 = 1

This is literally the only scenario where the outcome of the calculation equals the real-life outcome, ergo it must be correct. I'm only showing this because of your apparent fondness of programming - how can you wish to defy the very binary logic you glorify so much?

First, that's a false analogy. My so-called "love of programming" is not analogous to a love of purely binary logic, nor it is something that I use purely. Indeed, I cited xist for a logical fallacy on that very subject, the false dichotomy.

The actual source of my desire for programming is in using an AI to ensure a total lack of corruption; a system monitored by all humans at all times (though obviously not everyone can watch it every moment).

Second, this sentence

By definition, the use of currency is not the cause of U.S.S.R's downfall - if it was, all countries which used currency at the time would also collapse and they didn't - how is that not logical?

which you base the rest of your logic on, tells me that you didn't read or comprehend the rest of my post at all. I was speaking about how only certain conditions, such as a free market which uses planned obsolescence and other means to "balance" it's production levels, will actually sustain an economy which is based on commodity and trade. Essentially, a monetary economy cannot function in equally shared and enforced scarcity because it chokes trade.

Plus, get this; as I have been saying from the beginning, communism and a resource based economy are not anywhere near the same thing. Communism is an equal distribution of commodity; a resource based economy is the shared global ownership of all the Earth's resources to all humans. It goes back to the difference between commodity and resource.

I think what you really misunderstand is this, and feel free to read it as many times as you need to until you understand it; communism used money. Money does not represent resource, only commodity. Communism is not analogous to a resource based economy.

Just out of curiosity on this one; what do you think is going to happen to the market economy when every single menial job is automated for cheaper than even the most exploited of human beings? Do you think people will still have any sort of purchasing power? This is just one of the reasons that money becomes irrelevant with an increase in technology, and no amount of wasting goods or resources will ever make the world hospitable to money again. Besides, it's not like money is sacred. It's just a way things WERE done. It used to be that doctors didn't wash their hands between surgeries, but we gave that up because it caused problems in the form of disease. When science gives us a better answer, we should just take it. No fuss, no muss.

I would appreciate it if you actually read what was being proposed on www.thevenusproject.com and not jump to conclusions about what it is. Maybe when you actually cite things that they say, and provide the full context for it, I can address any comparisons to communism or the failed systems of the USSR.

As for the historical sources necessary for me to validate my point, I'm pretty sure of what I'm talking about because I live in a country which used to be under Soviet domain - I experience the direct, long-term results of Communism and Socialism on a daily basis - it was a terrible system of distribution that kept everyone without "connections" in queues which stretched for days. More often than not, goods didn't even reach store shelves and the only two things you could count on buying were matches and vinegar, everything else required government stamps or permits - a new kind of grey market emerged where people traded the stamps or permits among each other just like currency because currency meant nothing if you couldn't buy anything for it. Trust me, I know. To this day we pay the price - many areas of our economy and infrastructure are a decade behind the times although we're doing our best to catch up. Communism did one thing and one thing only - pillaged our resources for the benefit of the Kremlin. It claimed that everyone was equal, but that was not true - there is a saying from those times here, it goes "there are the equal and the MORE equal", which roughly translates that you were only equal if you had working class roots and were a member of the Party, preferably a politician or a government official, alternatively a member of the Militia - if you weren't, tough luck, you're not getting a whole lot of them stamps. It did not work, it caused civil unrest, the distribution was uneven, it killed the industry and that's why the system fell.

You cite anecdotal evidence, which is not valid for points based on history or any sort of objective. I'm not going to trust you just because you say "I know". That isn't how the truth is determined to the best of our knowledge; it is taking what any given person says at face value.

If you really have a point to prove here, it shouldn't be too hard to cite actual historical research. And if you're too lazy to do that, then you're too lazy to contribute to this conversation in any meaningful way. Same goes for if you don't have enough time. (Not saying you have said that, but I felt it was worth mentioning).

Also worth mentioning is that anyone who has skimmed this conversation or the threads so far has robbed themselves of a complete understanding of the arguments at hand, and has blinded themselves en route. It bears repeating; do not skim. Read everything, read it twice if you have to, and then respond.

I read your post thoroughly but I'm talking about this world specifically where developing a full and substantial game and getting it into the hands of players takes a little something known as "money", and if this is not the case then feel free to enlighten me further. I'd be looking for tangible examples and not pages and pages of fantastical theories.

It depends on your definition of "substantial". If your definition of "substantial" is "anything that was paid for" (it's unlikely that you are), then you're creating a circular argument.
On the other hand, if you can consider games like Black Mesa, a huge fan project to remake Half Life 1 as substantial, there's one example. This link has a bunch more. I'm positive there's more, but I'll drum them up tomorrow after I get some sleep.

 

[Foxi4]

I take it that me physically living in a post-soviet state and being familiar with its problems due to experiencing them first-hand is nothing compared to your knowledge of the communist reality when not living in a soviet state or anywhere near one. Alright then, I can throw links at you as well in my spare time but you have to understand that you are on the losing position here simply because you cannot go blindly againts history - Soviet states fell and democratic ones did not, and the reasons why can be plainly seen in the formerly divided Germany. The post-soviet side of the country is infinitely less developed than its western counterpart and it is physical proof of my line of reasoning - the Communist distribution system gave the good end of the stick to the Kremlin and the shit end to everybody else - this is historical fact. This experience taught us that an equilibrium between vastly different classes on the basis of resource-based contribution is not possible to achieve. On one end, you focus on the intellectuals who in your model vote, on the other you stress the real value of natural resources which the intellectuals contribute none of as the fruits of their work are not material and in your model worthless. This is a glaring contrast - how are you going to deal with it? Typing on mobile, so sorry for typos and lack of paragraphs.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Plus, get this; as I have been saying from the beginning, communism and a resource based economy are not anywhere near the same thing. Communism is an equal distribution of commodity; a resource based economy is the shared global ownership of all the Earth's resources to all humans.

And since we've achieved world piece, and all countries of the world are completely friendly with each other, I'm sure sharing resources will be no problem at all.

I think what you really misunderstand is this, and feel free to read it as many times as you need to until you understand it; communism used money.

What are you talking about? Communism eventually involves ending the use of currency.

Money does not represent resource, only commodity. Communism is not analogous to a resource based economy.

Perhaps you (and I don't mean anybody else, I want the OP's answer) could give us clear definitions of resources and commodities.

Just out of curiosity on this one; what do you think is going to happen to the market economy when every single menial job is automated for cheaper than even the most exploited of human beings? Do you think people will still have any sort of purchasing power?

If we get to the point where machines run everything, we'll need to start preparing for the Reapers since our cycle is coming to an end.

Regardless of whether there is money, electronics will still be a near essential part of our lives.

Besides, it's not like money is sacred. It's just a way things WERE done. It used to be that doctors didn't wash their hands between surgeries, but we gave that up because it caused problems in the form of disease. When science gives us a better answer, we should just take it. No fuss, no muss.

Maybe if science provides us with an alternative to money that isn't ridiculous, we'll consider it.

 

[Sop]

Wolvenreign brings world peace, all hail Wolvenreign.

 

[xist]

This distinction between making something for yourself and making something for everyone disappears when replication reaches the point of total abundance, and all that is left is ambition. Regardless of whether you wanted to do it for yourself or for the world, you still do it, and you still upload your work to the rest of the world. Do you know when this stops? When money gets in the way.

And as far as "experience of real life and observations of people in the public and private sectors" goes, this is citing of anecdotal evidence, and as you can see from the link, it is illogical.

By your own terms your first point is just your opinion and your second is a misconception based on lack of experience. Are you intimately familiar with the welfare state in other countries? Because i can tell you that unless i have a pretty big influence in the reporting of the news and the compilation of DWP statistics then ambition and drive is not a universal attribute.

You assume that the video cannot be evidence, when it is, in fact, a compilation of evidence that produces a case. You are a figurative blind man because you cannot watch this compilation of evidence.

No i argue that your point rests upon this being something that is subject to "careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor." Yet that doesn't go beyond making a video. No critical research, no extant communes or even cults, no peer reviewed evidence. Nothing...just a video.

"careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor."
Regardless, I will now link to the study the video refers to. As for the video on the front page of the Venus Project website, Paradise or Oblivion, that is merely a summation of the information provided on www.thevenusproject.com, so you have every opportunity to determine what you're attacking ACTUALLY is compared to what you think it is. When you are able to cease throwing (perhaps unintentional, but still uninformed) straw men, we can move this conversation forward with my actual position.[/quote]

Nope, i agree with that study, although i don't see it proving your point. The psychology behind anything given to excess removes impetus to achieve anything...however rewards are demonstrably able to promote better results. Additionally that's is NOT an independent study....at this point the fact that you link to that as evidence concerns me.

This is, by the way, in stark contrast to how you have not linked to anything in any of your posts, or sourced any of your claims thus far, period.

As you're so fond of stating...the burden of proof lies upon you to persuade others. You have not provided a SINGLE link to a scientific journal or example of this process in action despite my repeated desire to read a JOURNAL report that has been published and reviewed by the wider community. Additionally any points i've made that you can't answer you gloss over completely to provide your own spin....see pictures of the Earth or Indiana Jones.

Once again, you have clearly demonstrated your lack of ability to read what is written and discuss my actual position. I had very, very clearly stated in my first post that a resource based economy is not barter, which is what you seem to think it is.

Once again you're insulting. Your actual position appears to disregard personal freedoms to choose in favour of global freedoms. Humanity demonstrably doesn't behave in that way. Just because something has no resource value doesn't make it valueless...we are able to attribute value to things via financial means. It's not a perfect system but it works.

You know, I would think that after all of these posts that you've made and all the times I've asked you to read my posts thoroughly, you would have actually researched the position and ceased to skim. It really would make for a much more efficient conversation.

No what would make an efficient conversation would be if you didn't blithely ignore the reality of imposing this system upon the world and points that contradict your argument and start a topic based upon the title you did.

A resource based economy, as envisioned by the Venus Project and what I refer to when I use the term, would have never been possible in the middle ages. It makes use of technology not available at the time, and uses a worldview that virtually no one had then, that being that the Earth and the resources available to us were finite. Not to mention that you make a huge historical claim about the soviet union without backing it up, which is just another instance of your failure to meet your burden of proof. I will tally what burdens of proof you have to meet at the end of this post.

Wow you're insulting.....historical evidence backs up my point (as does Foxi) and if you check your claims i'm pretty certain they link to a single (non-published, non-reviewed) internet article. Yes it fits your point to believe that you have backed everything up but you've provided absolutely no evidence to back up any of your claims. When you actually provide some proper research that this form of social change is possible and how it should be implemented then a discussion can be made. Picking random articles that don't have any weight and back up little bits of your point isn't enough. Additionally regarding the USSR - an economic collapse can't occur without some form of monetary system. It's farcical to say that money caused the economic collapse...

And yes it would have been possible in the Middlge Ages, albeit on a much smaller scale. The fact that you refuse to see these micro-examples or even demonstrate one shows the flaw in your system. Living standards and resources at that time would fundamentally make the situation you describe that much easier.

A Technocracy does not "boil down" to a meritocracy. There are vastly many more intricacies in how it is built and how it functions, inherent in it's engineered design and scientific principles. The only thing that is "boiled down" here is your understanding of it, which I can only presume came from your apparently chronic habit of skimming.

Insulting. Assumption.

Which is why it belongs in a museum for everyone to observe and grant historical contact with, not made equivalent to something that can feed and house hundreds of other people and traded as such.

And yet what if some private owner purchases said object injecting money into good causes and puts the item on display (as demonstrated by the private ownership of many historic buildings such as Hever Castle). There's no reason that objects cannot lie in both realms.

So what you're telling me is that it's crazy to think that wasting a vast amount of resources produces a vast amount of waste, and that it's utterly insane to think that a process which wastes resources at an unsustainable rate on a finite planet in which we don't even measure how many resources we have left will result in those resources being scarce to zilch. As far as recognizing that strategies adapt to evolve and deal with prevailing political and economic changes, that is more or less precisely what I'm advocating for, which is to say that the only real solution to not wasting all of our resources is to see how much we have left, how much we're using, and how we can improve it's usage. It's just basic logic when approaching a finite set of necessary resources. Survival, if you will.

Are the resources that were in common use 500 years ago the resources we use today?

Oh, and I'll let your "tin foil hat" comment stand on it's own as a perfect picture of the mindset you bring to each and every post that you have made in this conversation. Your stereotyping and unfounded presumptions about my stance color your perception and cause you to be entirely disabled in arriving at a real, rational conclusion using evidence and reason.

Still waiting on the evidence. Your whole point rests (perhaps because of the way you start the topic) on the evils of the monetary system. Thus far you've skimmed over or ignored any difficult points about providing proof for your argument. Equating trade or living conditions in areas of different parts of the world?(where value and relative worth of certain objects differ? Nothing) You have provided NO proof of the form you advocate - "careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor." None.
"careful calculation, measurement, experimentation, and scientific rigor."

It seems you have managed to combine three logical fallacies; that of argument from authority, anecdotal evidence, and yet another failure to meet your burden of proof. No, I don't trust you just because you assert that you have two science degrees. Plus, I would think that someone with two science degrees would do a better job at researching his opponent's position and meeting his own burdens of proof, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have them. Not that it matters as long as your logic is faulty, of course.

At this point you lose me with your puerile condescension. Rather than engaging in discourse you lower yourself to insufferable. I'll finish this post but after this don't even bother replying because you're obviously unable to adjust your views or provide decent answers to points raised against you, nor are you able to provide cogent explanations.

The specific burden of proof I refer to is that these projects are going on. So one more for the tally.

Projects? Ok where are there two or three communities living in this way at the moment?

We need to abolish, or rather, stop, a process that demonstrably produces a vast amount of waste, and doing it better means not giving two rips about the profit motive and placing conservation and wise use of our resources as our top priority.

Planned obsolescence is a terrible idea but as someone arguing from a technological standpoint you seem to ignore the rate of growth and advancement that goes on because of it. Technology constantly advances and evolves and the push for newer, better, more efficient is buoyed by that drive for the next best thing to outwit the competitor. I don't disagree that it'd be nice to eliminate it entirely as it has a negative impact but equally, without it the push for new developments would diminish.

I don't insult subtly. You will know if I'm insulting you, because I will actually go out of my way to do it. It would be in your best interest to not assume that this is the case until it is explicit.

I've noticed. You're just generally insulting.

My point was that you continue to ignore my very clear statements about what a resource based economy is, as you have once more. If you find it insulting that I continue to point this out, I would suggest that a good solution is to actually do your research and address my real position.

This also goes for your assertion about removing an individual's desire and your assertion about everyone wanting to contribute being idealistic. You provide another logical fallacy in the form of an argument by assertion in merely asserting that it isn't realistic. Besides, it is hardly a binary state of affairs, which means you have committed yet another logical fallacy in the false dichotomy. Science often deals in what is not real *yet*, and it is known as the hypothetical or the theoretical, depending on it's status as a hypothesis or a theory.

See social welfare systems in countries outside of the US. Additionally see Disability status changes pending investigation and verification.

Given that we have a finite amount of resources and that they are being rapidly depleted by a profit motive incentive, why do you need a peer reviewed study to tell you that it will eventually run dry much faster than measuring them and watching it's depletion rate would cause it to? Should it not be patently obvious that a continued, sped-up drain on a finite pool will eventually run it dry? Why wouldn't it, exactly? What properties about the profit motive will absolutely ensure that we never run out of resources as long as it is profitable to keep draining and wasting them?

Why can't you provide one with your scientific and experimental rigour? Why can't you illustrate that as demands reach critical limits (or potential red zones) society and science doesn't explore new avenues but instead crumbles under the inability to use new techniques or methods. As i've said before the resource of today is not equivalent to the resource of tomorrow.

Burden 1: Prove that the Soviet Union collapsed in the way you said it did.

Not even necessary...go read a history book or see Comrade Foxi's reply from earlier.

Burden 2: Prove that this future-proofing you speak of is happening.

Holy crap? Are you not aware of constant new discoveries and their applications? Take graphene for example and it's superior conduction and supportive abilities. Or the potential microwave transmission of solar energy harvested from the moon. We don't just stop looking for alternatives...you know that technology is always looking for alternatives...why are you ignoring the point?

Burden 3: Human ethology agrees that mankind has always achieved more when spurred on to succeed. Actually, kind of that entire paragraph.

Success breeds superior results...just think of it in simple terms of a hunter-gatherer tribe who decided to move away from growing food and try taking on the aggressive fauna instead. It's a higher risk but the rewards are greater.

(P.S. Hopefully the training you received from those two science degrees will help you.)

You know what, any chance of me replying to you ever again evaporated (or even reading your opinion based pleas). You're a condescending, patronising and somewhat naive person. Good luck with that, although congrats for warranting me ignoring you (and i didn't even ignore Valwin and i thought he was a massive moron)

 

[Foxi4]

Comrade Foxi?!?

...it has a nice ring to it.

 

[Deleted User]

I've been reading through this thread, thank you Wolvenreign for new insights.

xist shows he is emotionally invested in this topic. For one thing, it can be clearly seen with his use of shaming tactics. Logic does not work on emotions. xist feels insulted and no amount of logic will never pierce through. The problem is that xist himself holds no control over his emotions so no amount of debate or discussion will ever convince him to feel different, much less think different.

Just look at this post from xist:

You know what, any chance of me replying to you ever again evaporated (or even reading your opinion based pleas). You're a condescending, patronising and somewhat naive person. Good luck with that, although congrats for warranting me ignoring you (and i didn't even ignore Valwin and i thought he was a massive moron)

No amount of logic will work with people who reply like this. If you do try to use logic, you will waste your time.

 

[Foxi4]

No amount of logic will work with people who reply like this. If you do try to use logic, you will waste your time.

If you want to play the logic card, beware of the consequences. For example, the OP presents a peculiar view on the downfall of the countries of the Eastern block which xist and myself find to be pulled straight out of OP's arse, and yet we face a demand for presenting historical evidence to prove that we are right when for all intents and purposes, it is the OP who should present arguments backing up his case. In other words, he "cleverly" misplaces the burden of proof on the oposing party along the lines of "I am right until you prove me wrong" - logic works the other way around.

 

[xist]

No amount of logic will work with people who reply like this. If you do try to use logic, you will waste your time.

Actually i don't think anyone likes being insulted by someone who ignores flaws in their argument and despite apparently coming from a point of view backed by rigorous testing cannot actually produce any published work backing up their complete argument (rather than bite sized chunks). Trawling the internet for random articles that fit your point of view and sponsored research does not a logical argument make.

 

[YamiHoshi.nl]

It's a circle:
Lack of money results into Piracy.
Piracy results into prices to be high.
High prices results into Piracy.
Piracy results into higher prices.
Etc.

 

[TripleSMoon]

<snip>

In other words, stop even trying to ease your conscience, and be honest with yourself about being a law-breaking asshole who does whatever he/she wants with no concern for morality whatsoever? Seems legit.

I jest... half jesting, anyway.

 

[Ubuntuの刀]

raulpica, I said 2 cuss words. Why the fuck would you remove it because of 2 cuss words...

 

[Gahars]

raulpica, I said 2 cuss words. Why the fuck would you remove it because of 2 cuss words...

If you wanna hang with us, I don't wanna hear you cuss. Don't cuss.

 

[JoostinOnline]

raulpica, I said 2 cuss words. Why the fuck would you remove it because of 2 cuss words...

You didn't meet the minimum number of cuss words. You should post a ton of cuss words and I'm sure the staff will forgive you for your slip up.

 

[The Milkman]

I actually agree, Society SHOULD be based on these ideas, but if it was, we would lack many of these things that would permit us to even think of an idea like this. Now, im not one of ya'll big city nerds *pulls suspenders* but it seems to me that were all forgetting what drove mankind to do all hes done. Reward.

Now, now, I know someone will be in that crowd shoutin' "But Milkman, this would benefit mankind all together! Everyone would be truly equal!" well thats true, just like pre-history, when we decided to form small communities, and use those communities to create things like language and farming. To establish order, in a chaotic world. However, pre-history is nice and all to look at, seeing how its pretty much the historians Sandbox and the Scientists battleground. But, if you look at history itself, almost every single innovation, invention, discovery, and whatever other long word you Google up so you guys sound smarter, has been fueled either by conflict, or money. Especially post-colonial age.

While, im not too clear on the big stuff, like Cars or computers or planes. Look at things like your phone. The reason its not the size of of a textbook anymore is due to a combination of adding as many gimmicks into something to attract the consumer, and military innovated technology. The GPS in that phone was made by the military. Its bluetooth made by Ericsson mobile. Now look at it. All that healthy competition has changed this:

To this:

All in the name of money.

Im not saying its not also a BAD thing, it does indeed take food from the hungry, keep health from the sick, and yes, keep us all from getting bits of data that can be infinity replicated or even recreated for free.

However, I would think that since its helped MUCH more then its harmed, the hungry would NEVER be able to be fed if we didnt innovate in farmming technologies, even the healthy would die faster then expected if we didnt create things like penicillin, and you sure as hell wouldnt have a computer to spread an idea like this if we were content with paintings on a wall.

To say we have accened above the use of currency, is to say we have created all we can EVER create. Seeing how were still behind on many of things past generations thought we would have, never the less things we will one day be able to do that we cant imagine now, without a doubt, we can only become better with money by our side.