No. You do not need to, but you should have your dollars backed up by gold, because gold is much more safe than paper. If it comes to a monetary crisis and your dollars are not backed up by gold, then all your dollars are lost, because of the lack of safety.
Yes. It could, and it can, because you and I live in such societies, and they function as long as there is no monetary crisis.
Because they were much more interested in a very much concrete money and in safety. Coins, goods, other things, houses, lands etc., animals, and even slaves seemed to be “moving money” or even “living money” (animals, slaves). They did not have huge problems with their monetary system, because money was much more safe: backed up by the goods, other things, houses, lands etc., animals, and slaves.
Never mind, Erik. The less safe your money is, the more risk you have. The dollar is as safe as the trust (faith, belief) in it is safe. Thus the dollar is one of the least safe currencies of the world. The dollar and other currencies are risk currencies which have their safety merely in paper and people who have trust (faith, belief) in this currencies.
Another aspect of today’s money is that the same money is used more than once e.g. If you have a million dollars in the bank, you can use it as credit to purchase something, and the banks are also using the same money for their purposes. No doubt ‘the city’ also uses the banks money to make all their trades. The only thing that matters is that we have faith in its value, even though there is no universal value.
Immaterial money makes the 1% of the humans richer and richer (more powerful and more powerful) and the 99% of the humans poorer and poorer (less powerful and less powerfull). Both groups differ more and more from each other, so that they have nothing to do with each other anymore. Perhaps they will become two different subspecies of the species homo sapiens or even two different species ( ) …
Details about the future? Well e,g, if you make the ultimate machine i.e. One which can produce another ultimate machine and can make a set of permanent products [diamond, carbonado, graphine], then eventually even poor African villages will have the means to build what they need. This will remove the need for manufacturers and business ~ you just print up what you need. Then you need a similar ultimate machine which can produce foods from basic chemical ingredients, and nano-filters and such to produce said chemicals.
Come to think of it, a quantum printer will do the lot.
Ah yes, well if we succeed then indeed i think machines will replace human beings in the workplace and wherever we want them to do the shit we don’t want to [most jobs].
That’s not the same as ‘completely’ replace humans though.
Perhaps we will find a way to transpose our consciousness into a better vehicle, but is that replacing humans or replacing our bodies/brains?
Yes but without the emotions and angst that image suggests. If people want to work e.g. In service to others, they may do it because they like doing it and being around people. In short, humans will have the choice.
Why will humans get the choice?.. Because long before we have AI, we will have ultra light robots composed of an empty ‘skin’ or shell of nano-machine-cells, WITHOUT AI! Humanity doesn’t want robots that you can program with a mobile phone app e.g. To go kill someone or steal etc. So we must create chips which are physically impossible to program in such ways; the physical logic paths of the chips or artificial neurons would be configured [some gates locked open & some closed] such that certain operations are locked e.g. Firing a gun, taking a marked item.
I don’t know that prediction, please expand. I infer that an ‘antiseptically clean future’ is not what it sees [or wants?].
That would only be possible if we don’t control the creation of the hardware and maybe software too, in which case chaos will ensue. On the other hand, given that your mobile phones already give out an id, killing someone with a robot would leave a calling card. It’s likely that criminals will find a way to use other peoples robots to commit crime, and such things are the reason why things will have to change.
The problem of duality is behind doubt, Descartes doubted everything other then the fact that he was absolutely certain of,mind that is that he is a thinking being. he based this in the assumption, that perhaps,met here is some evil genius, who created a world, where, everything around one, is perhaps nothing but chimera. but regardless, he could not create a world , where, he could deceive men into thinking, that their own thoughts were not real. the sense that thought is absolutely certain, coincides with the ontological proof of God, and the subsequent cosmological, because if God exists absolutely, and he is an all perfect being, then it would take an evil Genius to try to argue that God Would create an imperfect world, where men could not believe in
him,-God-by deceiving men to think, that God would create men who did not think of their thought that God was perfect. So doubt was created, and evil was behind doubt. God-men retained their original premise, in the inherent goodness of God-thought-Man.
But here what is significant, to claim this, is to set in duality as a modum operans, and what the death of god represents, is this very notion of de differentiating one from the other, and the demigod reoccurs as a being both good and evil, with the only way to re present its being , by exercising his will to reseed it’s being, into the vacuousness, the nothingness of his new belief. Only a few can really embrace a nihilism so stark and naked, and be able to deal with the nakedness into which they were thrown, to create or seed such a being, without belief in the coming genitive sense. it comes to behoove a total reliance on the Natural processes of a de differentiated hell, out of which only Kierkegaard was wise enough to attempt to leave out of. he was talking about the regressed and ontologically primitive duality become nuanced with the natural processes. here is where we are today. In crisis, despair, and existential angst.
Did he doubt if there was a time prior to the existence of him as a thinking being? If sure of that you must assume;
A, that the thinking being came into existence without there being the property of thought/thinking/being/consciousness/existence, prior to it.
B, or/ it came into being as a product or otherwise result of a world prior to it.
‘A’ doesn’t make any sense, so ‘b’ should be the natural outcome. In which case ‘Descartes the thinking being’ is in a relationship with its preceding world [is mind, following something else which is mind].
Can we not call this reasonably a relationship come connection and correlation between the two parties? If not we have to give an integer of cardinality denoting what the specific duality is.
Does he give any reasoning for such a leap? As my above sentiment, does he mean that there is a previous mental world to his/our existence? [ergo god] If so why did he draw the opposite conclusion to my reasoning; why did he think our thoughts don’t connect with the external world? Which means the world is certain and his original notion is false by his own account. This dude seems logically inconsistent or is it me.
If i may, in terms of mind/thought, i wonder how you get singularity [God] rather than as where i always end up with the [divine [pure balanced formless transparent thought]] infinite and non cardinal ~ i assume singularity is or has cardinality by its very nature? This is fundamental problem needed to be resolved prior to otherwise ‘believing’ there to be God as singularity of mind. For me is confused/ill-conceived?
When we see past this, then evil genius is not required. You just need infinity which manifests its opposite [perhaps because it is unlimited] in the cardinal, and when that occurs it goes boom with cardinality because its dualistic nature of dividing and continuing to divide thence forth exponentially. We then simply have a world with an infinite basis, no need for gods nor evil geniuses.
Angst [as to the latter part of your post] is a product of ignorance, or an inability to do anything about our situation [also ignorance]. Forming a belief system/philosophical-worldview from that is possibly also ignorance?
Humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive!
This thread is about the value of money, and i.e. “too expensive” means that more money is needed for paying, whereby the value of money changes, if no other measures are taken.
The chap being dismissed by the robots appears anxious and shocked to me = impression of angst. It could be subjective of course?
What is expense when you can produce any product with a 3D carbon printer and food printers of the near future? I can foresee potential problems with limits, but i think humans should be paid for in perpetuity ~ namely because there needs to be a reason not to do that? and one which humans agree on, given that neither humans nor robots should have the upper hand/say over things.
) … 
i.e. If we don’t find a way to keep making machines or run out of raw materials.